"evidence"? lol.

Kevin, can we please apply the rules of logic and evidence which you apply in this posting to your future postings about Republicans?

Because it sure would make for a different blog, wouldn't it?

There are a great many unhinged putative liberal bloggers. Many of them seem to forget how we consider Al Gore to have won in 2000, since he won the majority of the popular vote. For them, this vote is all about pledged delegates and if the supers vote against the pledged delegates they have committed treason.

Well, the supers are there for tie breaking, and if this isn't a tie, I don't know what is. The supers should vote their hearts and minds paying attention to the popular votes in their states AS well as what the supers think is the best thing to do.

In the future, we should dramatically lessen the number of supers, we should bring the convention back to a more reasonable timeframe, say May or June. We should demand closed primaries, and we should tell Iowa and New Hampshire to take a flying fuck.

This is what, Yglesias 2nd erection?

She did say that McCain would make a better Commander in Chief than Obama. Maybe that's just sloppiness, but it sure sounds to me like an implicit endorsement. A disgusting thing to say about her party's front-runner, if nothing else.

And I refer you to today's Bill Clinton's comments about "two candidates who love their country". Meaning one of three doesnt ?

It is not so much we believe they sincerely would have McCain elected but their tactics have gotten so dirty that it is sometimes hard not to see them imply as much.
Tell them to knock it off and then our sense of logic will take back over.
Right now it is the guts speaking

I'd be more impressed by the "logic" of this post if someone other than Penn was running the day-to-day message for the Clinton campaign. If his firm represents McCain, how can he lose by undermining Obama?

"And if she gave even a hint of not supporting Obama wholeheartedly during the fall campaign? Not only would she have no future presidential prospects, she'd be lucky to escape being tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. She'd be the most reviled Democrat on Capitol Hill. She knows that too."

Really ? Like Senator Lieberman for Lieberman ? Who ran against the Democratic candidate, and kept his seniority and Senate committee chairmanship; and who has now endorsed McCain and is trailing around whispering in his ear to let him know when he's said something egregiously stupid ?

IOKIYAS - It's OK If You're A Senator.

Before Kevin's indignation grows too large...

I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,� the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy". - Hillary Clinton

From Josh Marshall's TPM, a commenter:

I won't get upset about Hillary being called a loser. Why? Because I already have plan B figured out.
I got really emotional about it before I realized that I would vote McCain and a straight top to bottom GOP lineup if Hillary isn't the nominee and leave the party if Florida isn't counted.

Kevin-- Help us. What then is her game plan? What about the reality of the numbers? We welcome your insight.

Given your admission that her chances of winning are small and perhaps she should withdraw...let's just stop there.

This is the situation we find ourselves in. If the former sentence is true, she should withdraw, as her continuing in the contest HURTS Democrats. You can't say that she knows she can't win, but still is running because it is best for the party, because that is not true.

If she cannot win, and knows it, she should withdraw so the Dems can target McCain. If she cannot win and does not know it, she should be convinced to withdraw. If she can win, then, sure, stay in the contest, but this is not the case.

So, Kevin, given the facts, how can someone who knows Hillary cannot win, yet remains in the race even though she knows she cannot win, and knows that this hurts the eventual Dem nomine, not conclude that she in fact does intend to hurt, or at least does not care that she is hurting, the chances of Obama in the general election.

Remaining in the race and damaging your opponent when you know you cannot win means you don't care if your primary opponent is stronger or weaker in the general, that is, you don't seem to care if he wins, and, consequently, whether your party wins. The future prospects are irrelevant (I agree with you on that), it is this election that matters. So I think it is important that people realize that if Hillary keeps trying without any hope of winning, then, yes, she is hurting the party, and she knows she is hurting the party, and that is fair game to be called out on.

How is that a logical hop, skip, or jump?

Who's going to sign more of Senator Clinton's bills into law (especially around, say, health care)? President Obama or President McCain?

The answer should be obvious, and it should make it easy to figure out who Senator Clinton is going to support.

How many times have the Clintons promoted McCain at the expense of Obama? The crossed the threshold comment, the 3am phone call readiness, Bill Clintons assertion today (yesterday?) that Hillary and McCain are patriots and would have a robust discussion on policy, I'm sure I'm missing a few. Maybe possibly these are just points in time but there seems to be a regular occurrence of the Clinton campaign boosting McCain's credentials at Obama's expense in an effort to promote Hillary as the "true" Presidential candidate, and not necessarily doing any good for the Democratic party I might add.

The evidence is this:

1) Clinton has virtually no chance of winning the nomination.

2) The extended primary is demonstrably hurting Obama's chances in the general election.

3) From 1 and 2, Clinton must value her very slim chance of winning the nomination more than the damage she is doing to the Democratic chances in the general election.

4) Thus, she must either value the slim chance of winning to an extraordinary degree to overwhelm the strong concern she ought to have for Democratic prospects in the general or she doesn't really care very much if the Democrats lose.

Thus, either she is a megalomaniac or she doesn't very much care about the damage she is doing to the party's GE hopes.

This isn't hard.

My mother is all ears, you insensitive clod.

And she has evidence to the contrary.

To go a bit deeper into the weeds...

While Clinton's personal intent with regard to her continuing to fight are disputed, it is undisputed that her slim chance of winning is a fact.

Given that fact, whether she intends (as Matt implied), or does not intend is merely a question of her degree of culpability given the damage her continued campaign will have on the presumed Dem nominee.

Such distinctions would matter in a court of law as to Clinton's personal liability (murder or manslaughter), but those of us in the political fray can't pretend that the eventual result is the same...a weakened Democratic candidate, for no apparent reason other than Clinton's inability to recognize or understand that what she is trying to do is setting the Democratic party back, as in, digging an unnecessary hole when it is vital that we win back the Executive branch. Is she doing it willfully? I don't know. But that is secondary to the fact that her efforts, at this point, given the math and likely outcomes, are damaging, and as a partisan, it is not acceptable to let things play themselves out if it means the Dem party will be weakened in the long term.

And it isn't as if this process has been short-circuited or deals have been made in back rooms. When the reality is as conclusive as it is at this point, it is time to withdraw and begin the process of mounting a united campaign. Clinton, intentionally or not, is not helping this effort, and it is just plain obvious that her path to victory, even is possible, paints a horrible scenario for the Dems in general.

it's only taken a dozen comments to demonstrate the continued derangement that this primary season has inflicted upon putatively sensible liberal democrats, including even a lad as smart as comrade yglesias.

sweet jesus, it's frickin' march: people need to get a grip.

or, let me put it another way: obama may well be the most charismatic nominee the party has put forward since jfk. is there anyone here who would argue that jfk was a sucessful president from a liberal perspective?

jimmy carter - believe it or not, young people - was once regarded as a brave, refreshing new voice and was quite popular. anyone want to go down that path again?

mike dukakis, once upon a time, had a big lead: does that inspire anyone?

i support obama because i oppose dynastic succession but the obama supporters who think it's a given that he can run a better race against mccain than clinton can are living in a fantasy: there is no data set that can tell us who will run the better race. millions of democrats think that person is hillary clinton, not barack obama.

this idea that it's clinton's frickin' obligation to leave the race because she is unlikely to win the nomination is exceptionally insulting to the millions who support her: it's not like obama has run away with this thing, and it's not like the right-wing is through roughing him up.

i've long noted that his current edge over clinton in unfavorables is a temporary artifact: the core competency of the right wing is the smear job, and they are outstanding at it, even against the most perfectest candidate ever to walk this earth.

clinton has exactly one shot at becoming president, she still has a slim chance of getting that nominee, she shows every sign of being able to run as good a race against mccain as obama can, and yet we've got otherwise sensible people spouting rubbish that belongs over at the corner and similar homes to the deranged.

it's not that long ago that sensible democrats realized that the party had 3 able candidates; it's a shame to see fratricide breaking out for no reason at all other than ahistorical short-sightedness. i'm actually embarassed reading some of the material i see on various lefty blogs one way or another.

let's have some perspective: clinton or obama at their worst is a better president than mccain at his best.

For Hillary, it's not just about controlling the party; having Obama lose is the only way that Hillary herself could credibly run for the big chair again. A President Obama would be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination, and his VP would be the presumptive heir in 2016. By 2020 Hillary will be too old to run. (If Obama is a one-termer, she does have a shot at 2016, though by then she'll have a lot more Senate votes to defend.)

Given Hillary's refusal to quit despite being all but mathematically eliminated, plus her stipulating to McCain's nonexistent National Security cred, plus her eagerness to appropriate Republican frames, I think we have very good reason to be suspicious of her motives.

let's have some perspective: clinton or obama at their worst is a better president than mccain at his best.

Can someone remind Hillary Clinton of this?

I'd be more inclined to agree with Mr. Drum if the Clintons saw fit to seperate their lips from McCains ass cheeks for at least a few minutes.

I might be inclined to agree with Mr. Drum's opinion if the Clintons saw fit to extricate their noses from McCain's ass for a few minutes.

sure, quinn, because after all, in every speech he makes, obama is sure to point out what a great president clinton would make.

i appreciate the intent of your comment, but politics ain't beanbag, clinton is trying to wrest away a nomination likely to go to obama, and it's not her job right now to praise obama: that can wait for later.

notice that all the nasty things his fellow candidates said about mccain have made ZERO difference to mccain's standing right now.

notice that the biggest hit that obama has taken - reverend wright - had nothing to do with anything that clinton said.

the problem is not what clinton (or, for that matter, obama) is or is not saying: the problem is their supporters, all of whom should just please stfu rather than continuing this absurdist manichean dichotomy between the perfectest candidate ever and the bad person....

One more thing.

Clinton is a partisan animal (per Kevin's original post). Which is why her staying in the race is mildly distressing, as she is clearly a personal animal as well, that is, she is continuing this fight despite very long delegate odds and, at best, really divisive convention tactics in order to secure the nomination (nevermind the expected exodus of black voters, which, I must confess, is probably overblown, but then again, a contested convention would occur only a few months before the general).

In any event, Clinton's partisan chops and personal ambitions are at odds right now, and her personal ambitions are winning. This is a fair thing to point out.

I would vote, campaign, send money to her in a heartbeat if she was the nominee. Problem is, at this point right now, I just cannot see that happening absent a huge fracturing of the Democratic Party. She is losing, on all fronts, as in pop vote, delegates, fundraising, etc. She is losing, and she cannot win, and at one point or another, staying in a race you cannot win means that you have abandoned partisanship in favor of your own agenda. And right now, Dems can't afford this continued infighting.

But whatever, things will work out, and I'll vote for the Dem nominee, no matter how he or she gains it. I just hope that my vote is for a winner, not a person who has been so damaged that a moron like McCain can continue GOP dumbass rule because Dems were too afraid to call the primaries when they should have been called. Which is now.

Howard, point me to one quote from Obama that suggests McCain or himself would make a better President than Hillary Clinton. Sure things are going to get nasty, but this tactic is unique to Clinton.

abject funk, it is equally fair to point out that clinton has a perfectly good reason to assume that personal and partisan goals align, which is to say on exactly what basis is she supposed to conclude that obama is guaranteed to beat mccain while she is not?

indeed, she is perfectly entitled to think the converse is the case, and since, as i already noted, there is no data set that can tell us either way.

to cite my old friend history again, the party rallied around kerry pretty early, he had an excellent convention, and it didn't mean jack in the end: as the former british prime minister harold wilson once famously said, "a week is a long time in politics."

we've got about 31 or 32 weeks until the election (i'm not in front of a calendar, forgive me): that's a very long time.

you want to hear about a party damaged by infighting? go look up (or perhaps you live through, as i did) 1968: you don't get - you can't get - more infighting than that year, plus you had wallace splintering off the south.

and yet humphrey came extremely close to winning, and had he separated himself further from lbj on the war, he almost certainly would have.

in comparison, what's going on now is a tea party, other, of course, than in the overheated precincts of blog comments sections where a competitive nomination race is being treated as the thrilla in manila, with the presumption that neither candidate is ever likely to be the same.

Bill Clinton:

"It'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country, who were devoted to the interest of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues instead of all this other stuff which always seems to intrude on our politics."

He doesn't make these statements by accident.

quinn, of course, that's not what clinton said, but let's pretend it is.

but then you had obama saying that had he been president in the '90s, the gop wouldn't have made the congressional gains it did, an equally nonsenical remark that i found truly offensive to the only succesful democratic president since fdr and offensive to the intelligence of the rest of us.

in short, not his best moment either.

there are plenty of outs for clinton on the national security remark if it comes to it, but frankly, i doubt that it's going to make the slightest difference, nor does it suggest that she has forgotten that obama would be a better president than mccain.

jd, that's a perfect example of why i always regret entering into these discussions: do you think there are going to be 3 candidates in november?

of course he didn't make the statement by "accident:" as a president, clinton was subjected to the most disgusting and disgraceful attacks imaginable for 8 long years over complete and total trivia. he is lamenting the fact that our politics is about complete and total trivia, not endorsing john mccain for crissake.

This is a pretty weak post. You cite no evidence for your position other than your feeling that Clinton is really partisan. Maybe so. But given the conduct of her campaign over the past month, MY's point seems like a reasonable, if uncharitable, reading of the situation as well. And certainly not based on less evidence than your appeal to HRC's basic good charactor in responce.

Moreover, you just seem wrong on the facts about the position of the Clintons in the party if Obama loses (as long as they don't get blamed for it) - Bill Clinton would still be the top Democrat in the country in some sense (only living Democratic candidate never to have lost) if Obama loses whereas Obama is the leader of the party if he wins. I don't think that this should be too controvertial. Whether it has anything to do with the Clintons actions recently is certainly open to question.

It is annoying to be told that we Obama supporters need to "get a grip" when we criticize the Clintons for acting in a manner that we believe will damage the democratic nominee. By winning the popular votes in Texas and Ohio, I think Clinton earned the right to continue until Pennsylvania, but I do not excuse the crassness of her campaign. Mark Penn's artless dismissal of Bill Richardson's endorsement is just the latest in a series of wrong notes the Clinton campaign has played on their slow march back to DC.

I happen to like Hillary in spite of this, but I understand why Matt Y and others look at her campaign and see the worst. All of the innuendoes and spin coming from her camp muddy the waters, and make it easy to doubt wether she is a partisan Democrat, as you claim, or a partisan Clintonista, loyal to her own circle above all others.

"...gigantic lizardman that destroys Pittsburgh. That would probably cost him a few votes in PA."

Yeah, but it would buy him a lot votes in Cleveland. Especially if it knocked the Steelers out of playoff contention.

What Howard said.

Jeepers, get a grip folks. Hillary remaining in the race is doing exactly zero damage. Almost half of the Democrats who have voted in these primaries have voted for her. I happen to agree with most (all?) of you that Obama is the stronger candidate, but I see no reason for Hillary to drop out now, if she doesn't want to. I really get tired of this endless kvetching about her nefarious plotting. You sound like a bunch of damn Republicans, for pete's sake. Next thing you know you'll be accusing her of shooting Vince Foster.

Where in Bill Clinton's remark does he specify that the two unnamed candidates are Sen. McCain and Clinton? He's talking about two hypothetical candidates in a hypothetical race. He could mean the primary race or the presidential race. He doesn't specify one or the other. Take a deep breath and calm down.

If you want to see the kind of anti-Obama fever swamp that some of the pro-Hillary people are swimming in, hike on over to No Quarter blog (http://noquarterusa.net). You might mistakenly think you've stumbled across a Freeper orgy, but you'd be wrong.

[Clinton] is lamenting the fact that our politics is about complete and total trivia, not endorsing john mccain for crissake.

Not only is he not endorsing McCain, he's saying that both Democratic candidates are patriots: whichever one of them wins, the general election candidates would be "two people who love this country, who were devoted to the interest of the country."

How utterly, absolutely, mind-bogglingly incredible that anybody would think he meant that would be the case only if Hillary won the nomination.

Kevin, this 'we are the chosen' attitude in the Obama camp is ridiculous, even more so within the democratic party. You'll have to live with a perfectly legitimate Clinton campaign which gets considerable support from the electorate. That is a reality Obama will have to deal with. If he can't, he's not fit for the presidency. If he can, good for him AND the democratic party. If the democrats lose to McCain, it's no big loss, it's in fact good for the party, it will strengthen it.

http://www.softwarecomplex.blogspot.com/

Software

* 20 Tips For More Efficient
* Abcfastdirectory 1.0
* Adobe Cs3 Collection
* Adobe Dreamweaver CS3
* Adobe Flash
* Adobe Photoshop CS2
* Ashampoo AntiVirus 1.60
* Aurora Password Manager 1.4
* Avi Movie Player
* Avira AntiVirus
* BitDefender
* Bittorrent 5.0.9
* Camtasia Studio 5
* Converter
* Diskeeper 2008 ProPremier
* Download Manager
* Download Yahoo Messenger
* Driver Magician
* Dvd Players
* E Books 1
* E Books 2
* Firefox
* Free Design Softwares
* Full Speed Internet Broadband
* How to accelerate your Hardrive speed
* How To Download You Tube
* How to Find and Repair Flat screen Monitor
* How To Hack Into Windows Xp
* How To Monitor For Registry
* How To Monitor For Registry
* How To Pc Running
* Lock My Pc 4
* Macromedia 8+
* Mapkeyboard
* Mcafee Anti Virusscan 10
* Media Player Download
* Method To Increase
* Monitor Wifi Signal Nice
* Most Usefull Utilities
* Nero 7 Keygen
* Norton Antivirus 2008
* Online Tv Player
* Pc Tools Antivirus
* Player Software
* Poweriso 3.5
* Registry Mechanic
* Send Free Sms
* Send Free Sms World
* Studioline Photo Basic 3
* Super Fast Shutdown
* Symantec Antivirus
* System Cleaner 5.55c
* System Mechanic
* Top Antivvirus
* Trend Micro Internet Security
* Typing Master Pro 2007
* USASoft DVD Video H264 Converter
* Useful Video Converters
* Video Converters
* Virtual Network Computing
* web cam And video
* Wyzo

System Tools Software

* Advanced WindowsCare
* CCleaner
* Disk Clean Wizard
* Doc Scrubber 1.1
* Hot CPU Tester Pro
* Modem Spy
* Paragon Partition Manager 8.5
* Ram Cleaner
* Registry Genius 2.6.08.01.04
* Revo Uninstaller v1.42
* Secure Disk
* Spyware doctor
* Spyware Terminator 2.1 Beta
* Spyware Vaccine 2.6
* SysAid Free Help Desk
* TuneUp Utilities 2008 7.0.7992
* Visual Thesaurus
* Windows Registry Repair
* WipeDrive
* XXCLONE

Drivers Software

* ATI Catalyst Drivers 8.3
* ATI Catalyst Drivers 8.3 Vista
* NET Framework Version 1.1
* NET Framework Version 2.0
* NET Framework Version 3.5

Oh, so I suppose Obama was doing Hillary a huge favor for the fall campaign when he walked up to her face on national TV at the South Carolina debate and called her and her husband liars. Right there on high-def, just cut a DVD and you've got your campaign commercial.

Or when he ran an expensive and extensive ad campaign saying that she'd say anything to win. Yeah, that'll really help her against McCain.

And he did this stuff long, long before Clinton's regrettable one-time statement about the commander-in-chief threshold.

Yeah, he's too pure to run anything negative against Clinton. Like this steaming pie his campaign excreted this morning.

It seems like his whole campaign centers on picking over her every word or the every word of her staff. His people are everywhere impugning her character, pressuring her to quit. And yeah, blocking the re-votes in 2 of the nation's most crucial swing states. That's really gonna propel the Democrat to victory this fall, isn't it?

There's life outside the activist-blogger echo chamber. Take a gander some time.

Clinton's staying in the campaign means that there is more infighting and less fighting against John McCain. Every week he goes to England or Iraq and gives speeches as the one for-sure candidate for the presidency, he begins to seem more presidential. In the meantime, the media gets to write more stories about Democrats devouring their own. As always.

HRC is in denial. It's that simple. I don't believe she would consciously hurt the party--Kevin is right that she's not that stupid. She really thinks she can win this thing, and she seems to think that she can win it by destabilizing Obama enough to get the superdelegates to overturn him. If this process were occurring in a vacuum I'd agree with the Clinton folks that she should stay in as long as she wants. But it isn't and she shouldn't. She's too wedded to her conception of her destiny--wanting to be the first female president is too much a part of her identity, and I doubt that her staff is going to take her aside and give her the straight dope.

If Obama..shoot, I almost wrote 'Osama'...I can't imagine we won't be hearing that enough from the Repugs if he wins the nomination. If he can't handle it-meaning being prepared for it, and effectively counter it, all of it, then he doesn't win. He won't win with a 'how could they say that, that's bad to say' defense. I've said this before, HRC has reponded as tho she knows that, as concurred by a national poll posted on MyDD, most folks already see McCain as 'presidential'. So logically she's going to promote herself, and not Obama, as McCains equal in that regard. I remember many posts from MY on Joe Klein, Jake Tapper, etc. and many others in the Village who consistently made claims that were devoid of facts, data, or any actual information but were heavy on innuendo, grand supposition and a good bit of mind reading to support their respective arguments. There was also acknowledgment of the insult that was implied because they obliviously knew that you, the reader, already knew what ever they were 'reporting' thus the reader wouldn't need to be shown any 'evidence' for their 'reporting'. "The force on the dark side is very strong." J.M. Yoda-10,850 Dagobah Galaxy.

Kevin,
You ain't the only one that's all ears!!!

Clinton wants to win and she'll stay in the race as long as there is a .001% chance that she can. She really doesn't care what she does to the Democratic party in the process.

I believe it is true that she'd rather see McCain as president than Obama, for a couple of reasons--personal enmity towards Obama and delusions that she can be a white knight 4 years later.

I used to admire the Clintons so much, but I have come to despise them. I don't take disillusionment well.

I'm with Kevin, I seriously doubt Hillary is continuing to campaign because she wants to undercut Obama for the fall.

Her husband is the ex-president for goodness sakes, of course they think they can sway the "supers" and squeeze this out.

And even though the thought of a new round of tabloid pictures with Bill and some woman he harassed/seduced makes me sick to my stomach, I would vote for Hill if she won the nomination because the Republican party has collectively lost its freakin mind.

I think the prolonged campaign is good for Obama. He needed to wizen before the General Elect, and like it or not, the Clinton's have actually gone pretty easy on Obama over this and other issues. Think the Republican 527's will go easy?

Besides, now our ADD news media has blabbed about the Wright topics for weeks, they won't go back to the topic for the general. This is good.

I'm sure this has been said upthread, but it is all about ego. Hillary's ego won't let her do what is right for the Democratic Party and this country and that is - step aside gracefully and let a new generation of Democrats take the helm. Very sad.

Hillary may have a slim chance to win the nomination , but it is still a chance; and I for one, am glad to support a Dem who doesn't give up when the other side says so--we have seen far too much of that in the past 7 year.

BTW, if, as is likely, Barack gets the nomination, I will of course, support him fully. Anyone who is truly committed to advancing the wellbeing and restoration of America after the Bush debacle will pledge to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be!

Evidence---um, her statements? Could her statements be taken as evidence?

Hillary is not "way behind" in the delegate race- she is within about 3% of the total awarded so far. Why is winning the nomination conflated with winning the pledged delegate total, since the rules do not specify that and the very existence of superdelegates implies some autonomy? Given the undemocratic nature of the caucus systems, the race is basically indeterminate.

Obama, great man that he is, is a seriously flawed general election candidate. Weakness among key constituencies, inability to win big blue states against Clinton, and now the black liberation theology bit make his success problematical. Pennsylvania and other primaries to come will probably show him to have lost momentum entirely.

Superdelegates will probably realize that they are staring into the jaws of defeat with him.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

thanks for the excuse not to read the thread

Question to all the Hillary supporters arguing that she is staying in to be some sort of Democratic insurance policy. If she stopped now and let Obama get on with fighting McCain and Obama was hit with red kryptonite and turned into a lizardman, couldn't she jump back in?

I'm beginning to think Obama might be the only democratic nominee in god knows how many years who can come back after a general election loss. He can just blame Hillary, Nazis, and the racism of typical white people.

Hillary's chances are slim and maybe it's time to withdraw. But how do we hop from there to an out-of-the-blue factual assertion that Hillary would just as soon see Obama lose in November?

—Kevin Drum

Uh, it's called human nature.

Wow, Kevin, two posts where you take Matt to task. I thought you were two wimpy for that- so good for you. Yes, Matt has turned into a loon about Hillary- he's embarassing. I'm glad a respected writer like yourself has called him out on it. Now, how about a comment about Josh and his CDS?

When Obama is finally nominated, the Clintons will campaign for him just enough to rehabilitate their reputations - but not one bit more than that. They hoped Gore would lose; they hoped Kerry would lose; and they'll hope Obama will lose.

When Huckabee was in a similar situation on the Repub side, the party and MSM were unanimous in telling him to get out -- despite the fact that he had the added rationale of really running for president of the 700 Club... if Hillary really cared about advancing a policy more than advancing herself, she'd suspend her campaign and back the nominee. No amount of spin can change that Kevin.

Mate, your plaintive cry for "evidence" strikes me as terribly risible. There is not going to be any such evidence (and this is not a matter of partisanship), it is a matter of analysing what is behind. You do it all the bloody time when you're looking at the bloody Right in your country,, but suddenly looking at your own side you get soft-minded.

Well, in any case, better for your nation to have a Left congress and a Right president. Less likely to see protectionist clap trap, probably can cut deals on the financial issues - a good combo. A crippled Left presidential candidate is ideal. I personally like the very unlikable Clinto to go up against your man McCain for said result, but she does seem to be doing an adequate job of crippling, so one way or another.

Doubtless Americans worried about domestic politics will come to different analyses, but looking from outside at the necessary pro-economic growth results, McCain president over a Left congress looks ideal.

Gary Hart stayed in the race in 1984 (and kept winning primaries) long after his chances of winning had moved from slim to none. Humphrey kept fighting in 1972, eventually bowing out at the convention when the California challenge failed.

It is hard to let go when there is still some chance.

Gary Hart stayed in the race in 1984 (and kept winning primaries) long after his chances of winning had moved from slim to none. Humphrey kept fighting in 1972, eventually bowing out at the convention when the California challenge failed.

It is hard to let go when there is still some chance.

There are an awful lot of big time professional politicians not named Clinton fighting hard for Hillary. I have a hard time thinking they are caught up in some kind of cult of Clinton personality. I think many of them are looking out for the most important person in their lives--themselves.

If you think about it it is pretty obvious that some fat and comfortable beltway Democrats must have concluded that an Obama victory over McCain isn't necessarily a good thing for them personally. Life is good right now. Change is always scary.

If democracy actually breaks out in the Democratic party leadership would pass to a new generation of Democrats. Members of the current beltway establishment could lose their meal tickets as new people and factions emerge. Some of the current talking heads on cable could lose their jobs. More importantly, lobbyists must fear that their old DLC oriented rolodexes wont be worth as much if Obama wins.

Perhaps most importantly if it is successful the Obama/Dean 50 state strategy threatens the dominance of the big state pols like Ed Rendell and Chuck Schumer. Imagine having to surrender power to energized, emergent party leaders in states like Colorado and Missouri. I am not sure Rendell and Schumer personally relish that prospect.

Maybe it is just me, but I have been wondering if Obama and Clinton aren't really surrogates in a fight being waged behind the scenes between the beltway Democratic establishment and the more inclusive faction lead by Howard Dean for control of the Democratic party. It is too bad we don't have reporters willing to investigate the implications of an Obama win on the current crop of beltway insiders.

Its worse than this - bill clinton actually "carried the water" for the criminal cabal behind the bush criminal cartel.

HE STOPPED ALL INVESTIGATIONS INTO IRAN/CONTRA AND REFUSED TO LET THE TRUTH COME OUT

This is what gave the current criminals a "green light" to steal elections, enable 9/11, launch a war of aggression based on lies, and loot the federal treasury.

The clintons are corrupt and just more of the same.

I'm leaving the dem party. This whole primary has been disgraceful.
Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are blithering idiots. Obama is a straw man set up by a bunch of short-sighted Chi pols to pull the wool over the eyes of a desperate electorate with a chimerical unity message.

I don't see unity anywhere, inside the party or out. Racial wounds have been exposed in the middle of all this and now take precedence over equally pressing issues, like the economy and climate change. It's almost as if the GOP planned it this way all along.

And FL and MI are lost.

Ron is right and it should be obvious from the way the deadwood beltway cliques votes that they don't care about either the best interests of the country or the party. Well "Don't care" isn't exactly right. Tthey are so arrogant that they conflate their own interests with the best interests of the country and the party. I think HRC is entirely capable of thinking that she ought to be President therefore it doesn't mattter who or what gets hurt just so long as she gets to be President.

You have a real propensity for sticking your head in the sand, Kevin.

Clinton derangement syndrome, as displayed in the responses to this post, is a sad, sad thing. Maybe, just maybe, Clinton thinks that four years of a president who seemingly would rather get along with Republicans than get things done is a really bad idea at this point in time.

Yes, Clinton should drop out at this point. Even if she thinks Obama to be unqualified and inept, he's still a lot better than McCain and the focus should shift now to avoiding four more years. But there's no reason for anyone to believe that Clinton's staying in the race for any reason other than beliefs that Obama will not be able to be a successful President and that someone's got to try for success. Agree with those points or not--I agree with the former, but recognize the need to choose the lesser failure at this point rather than strive for a win that won't happen--but the refusal to acknowledge that someone might in good faith believe that Obama simply isn't up to the job and might in good faith think that that's enough reason to stay in the race down to the wire is a sign that rational thought has left the building and Clinton derangement/Obama worship has taken hold.

Clinton simply does not want a McCain presidency, and anyone attributing to her the desire for four more years is thoroughly insane. I'd really like to see better than that from purported Democrats.

This is an Occam's Razor moment if there ever was one. Good lord--she's not nefariously plotting for the 2012 election; she's simply focusing on the next obstacle ahead of her and blocking out every long-term view, as she has done throughout her campaign. We're seeing this campaign's usual insularity and wholly reactive mode, not some Dr. Evil master plan.

The only thing remotely long-term and strategic about it is the valiant attempt to create the illusion, through the smoke and mirrors of focusing on FL/MI and pretending Pennsylvania can save her, that she is still a viable candidate. The reality is that her sole path to nomination now is getting the supers to supersede every other measure of this race. So far the media has been willing to go along with the "they're neck and neck" nonsense because it's in their interest to pretend this is still a horserace.

transform him into a gigantic lizardman that destroys Pittsburgh

Hey now, that's not very nice. What about Harrisburg instead?

Thanks Kevin, for calling Matt out on this. Frankly, I'm worried that some of the liberal blogosphere is starting to sound as deranged as Republicans sound to me.

I'm with J Bean - the race is damn near a tie, and I for one am glad to see that there is a Democrat out there who still fights when the chips are down.

BTW James Carville, a "Democrat" who has long put hating Howard Dean above any loyalty to either liberal values or the party itself was quoted in the NYT this morning as compaing to Richardson to Judas. Richardson "betrayed" the Clintons, you see.

If Clinton thinks that Obama is unqualified and inept and unable to stand up to the Republicans then she really is delusional. Those descriptors fit her much better than him. She collarborating with the R's repeatedly when we needed her to fight and she has botched her campaign start to finidh. the defining characteristic of HRC is that she has a lizard brain fixation on her percieved shortterm adavantage and no wisdom about the longterm.

At the time of the New York primary I was on the fence about who to vote for. Since then, however, the treatment of Hilary by MSM and bloggers has revived PTSD in this 60+ woman. Women are supposed to be nice and she isn't being nice; women are supposed to be patient and unselfish; women are especially supposed to understand why they should defer to bright young men full of potential.

I am really disgusted by the swooning hordes who fear for the delicate health of the party.

I am not saying that I believe that she will be a better president. I am saying that my level of identifying with her is way way up. I do not want this woman to concede before the last vote is counted.

But there's no reason for anyone to believe that Clinton's staying in the race for any reason other than beliefs that Obama will not be able to be a successful President and that someone's got to try for success.

That's an interpretation that improbably takes the Clintons' own egos and desires out of the equation. How about this: Clinton is staying in the race because she really, really wants to be president and there's still a slim chance she can convince the supers she should be the one on the Democratic ticket?

That's a little more accurate, I think, than the noble characterization of her selflessly stepping up to save the country from Obama, and yet it doesn't slide into wacky "she's plotting against us for four years out!" territory.

(And before someone starts in on Obama's huge ego: I don't think there's anything wrong with badly wanting to be president or having the huge ego necessary to run for that job. I just don't think painting Clinton as an altruistic counter-Obama is any more reasonable than assuming she's currently running in the 2012 race.)

I have no problem with Senator Clinton compteting her heart out until the thing is clinched. It's March and there is plenty of time to rally around the victor at that point. A positive pro-Hillary campaign taking the attack to McCain would have been great and may have worked, too.

Giving John McCain free 30 second ads and conducting a scorched earth campaign tearing down the presumptive candidate are beyond the pale.

Democratic leaders (read: super automatic doubleplusgood delegates) need to give the Clinton campaign a message: Stop the negative campaign or we will.

I've been active in politics since the sixties, but i can't remember another politician besides HRC who sought the nomination by running against her own constituents. maybe HHH in 1988. It is an example of her ineptitude and arrogannce that she thinks she can get the nom by attacking Obama's base--Democratic voters--and then expect those people to be goood little peons and vote for her in the fall. Most probably will but, since she has opted for the 50% plus one big state strategy that worked so well for Gore and Kerry she is going to need every single votes she can get. So dissing half the rank and file Dems now is a stupid tactic.

If the superdelegates broke for Clinton against Obama's popular win it would create a division in the Democratic Party worse than 1972 and hand the presidency to the Republicans. It would be beyond stupid. It would also be playing into Republican hands because they have been trying to gin up some kind of schism.

It is time to unify the party. Because of this I am curious to know why Team Clinton is still in the race pouring negativity onto the heir apparent. The party has nothing to gain by this and neither does Clinton.

At the time of the New York primary I was on the fence about who to vote for. Since then, however, the treatment of Hilary by MSM and bloggers has revived PTSD in this 60+ woman.
Wow, that's a reason to select a candidate.

Kevin Drum

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is to partisanship in Washington DC that doesn't involve the insiders versus the outsiders - not Dem's vs Rep's (that's just a show for the voters).

The insiders are Clinton, McCain, and any elected politician (Lobbyist or media hack) who has been pedaling influence in Washington DC for more than 10 years. Clinton does want to hurt Obama, Clinton doesn't care if McCain wins - but she does care if some "other" Democrat becomes President. If/when that happens she and Bill are finished as the pinnacle power force in the Democratic Party – and their “insider” status wanes.

Look at the Clinton's history - what would make you think there is no proof that if they can't win they'll take it all down with them? That is exactly what they do. The Clinton’s are political royalists' who think the people can't rule themselves - they think they are better than you and I, and they always have.

Please, do not assume for an instant that Clinton will go through some altruistic moment and do the right thing. She won't, she is incapable of it. The Clinton's are the political equivalent of the water bugs that feed of the pond scum - and they will do whatever they have to do to maintain power - period. They would never put the country before themselves because the Clinton’s believe they are the country.

If Clinton and Osama’s positions were reversed, Obama would have been forced to withdraw a long time ago. Clinton would have demanded it, party leaders would have demanded it, and the news media would have demanded it. Clinton lost this nomination because of poor planning, arrogance, and stupidity - no other reasons. The Democratic Party nomination was her game to lose and she lost it - now she needs to leave and let her betters go on to the GE and victory without her medaling any further.

I think that Hillary's continued campaign will make Obama a stronger candidate, not a weaker one.

Consider a boxing analogy. You'd rather have your sparring partner expose your weak left hook than your opponenent in the 8th round. Obama has got to handle the commander-in-chief, defend-the-country issue.

Furthermore, the continued race has generated huge interest in the media and with voters in places that don't usually get any say in the nomination. Obama and Hillary continue to get gobs of free coverage. Granted, not all of it is positive, but I'll bet a vast majority of it is. And remember, we pay far more attention than the average voter does.

How much more money has Obama raised, how much more airtime has he bought, how much more does the public know who he is and what he stands for.

"Hillary is ruining it for us" is the talk of losers. Quit talking like losers. You're winning. Keep winning. Learn to love the fight.

I do nothave any issue HRC compteting her heart out and stasying in the race until she gets it. It's early (just March) with plenty of time to go. A pro-HRC campaign, attacking McCain and the Bush administration and the economy and the war will work as well - take the focus off Obama and the attacks on him (however valid they are) and focus back on the issues.

SHe will will more votes by going back to basics - her strengths....

My great reluctance to support Obama is based on my impression of his supporters. A more venomous, irrational and quite unprincipled bunch I have never seen -- not from people who call themselves democrats. I will not support such attitudes and behavior and most of all, such talk.

The Obama people have won the nomination. They neee to move on to McCain. They just can't stop demonizing Hillary and embittering her supporters by the day. Of course there will be a fight for the party if he looses but with all that money and the ferver of his supporters thats chump change as compared to a nomination.

I don't think she is deliberately doing anything to amke Obama lose the GE. She is trying to do things to make him lose the nomination. Unfortuantely, much of what she is doing does inflict harm in the GE (although I think Obama will win the GE running away.)

Regarding the Bill Clinton quote about about candidates who love their country. He was specifically referring to the GE (he referenced McCain) and after he said what was quoted above he said "And that is why I am supporting her."

That can only be read as questioning Obama's patriotism, there is no other way of reading that.

Secondly, regarding the "steaming load of crap" that one commenter said the Obama campaign put out there, everything that was said is true and is of legitimate concern. This is unlike the ridiculous "big state" theory that the Clinton campaign is putting out there.

What I do find of interest is that most of the recent polling states a higher percentage of Obama supporters woukld be comfortable with Clinton as the candidate than Clinton supporters would be of Obama being the candidate.

I guess that means that Clinton's voters aren't really strong Democrats to begin with. (snarky sarcasm intended).

@jerry: re: closed primaries. What do we do about states that don't require party affiliation? Aren't open primaries, despite potential mischief from the GOP, a more democratic process?

wb and others here draw on a true conservative frame, something that has been exploited by conservative liberals. It distinguishes wild feminists, militant blacks, yippies and other kinds of long-haired trouble makers- now this list includes the netroots and Obama-supporters-who-are-nothin'-but-cultists- from true sensible Americans. This reminds me that you can read the history of this frame in Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America which is due out soon.

Of course she's plotting Obama's downfall! She's still in the race! When she concedes, then we can say she's not trying to make him lose! Until then, not!

And do you really think she would suffer any consequences for not supporting Obama wholeheartedly? Remember, this is the Democratic Party we're talking about here.

Finally, 25% of Hillary supporters recently polled said they would prefer to see Obama lose in November (vs. 10% of Obama supporters vice versa). Where do you suppose this kamikaze attitude comes from?

And why think that Mark Penn, that paragon of noble humility, and the rest of the bunch have held up consideration of an Obama loss as beyond the pale of their strategic thinking?

Correction: Hillary has NO chance whatsoever of WINNING the nomination.

But the Clintons dont give a damn about the Democrats or this country -- they want the white house back and will stick and nothing to get it.

Even if this country goes through another four years of Bushie hell with McSame

Just exactly what would Kevin's cliched "tarring and feathering" by the Democratic party look like? Compared to what the Republicans have done to her in the past, a (yet another cliche) cake walk.

Also, Kevin, you have obviously never worked on a primary campaign before. There is more residual bitterness than in a general election campaign.

I will not expect to see HRC stump for Obama.

I did a search on this alleged issue of patriotism
remark by Bill Clinton and came across this comment below he made in NC two days ago. Is this the alleged smear? Unless someone is drinking some post-Foucault deconstructionist KoolAide how is this comment on the Fall election a smear to Obama (who never is mentioned). Is there anothjer quote elsewhere (not originating from Matt Druge)

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country...And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

[First, that was out of bounds. Second, start signing your posts, "little bear" or I will start deleting them. --Mod]

Unsigned at 10:46, that was fucking far out of bounds.

Stefano Collecti, although most media outlets aren't reporting the whole quote, the last line of it is what some people are objecting to:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. So that is my argument for her."

I'm inclined to think this is relatively small potatoes in Big Dog's repertory of verbal campaign foolishness. Still, it's part of a pattern.

"Clinton wants to win and she'll stay in the race ... doesn't care what she does to the Democratic party... "

Helena nails it. With very rare exceptions, the people 'at the top' are massively ego-driven.

They act in their own intersts rather than the best interests of their country, company,... (whatever) this is the main reason the world is the mess it is. Bummer that.

I've always wondered if we'd be better off using a lottery to pick some sot off the street to be president. Likely wouldn't do any worse than what we've got now.

Stefano Collecti-

Do you posess deductive reasoning skills? Anything Bill Clinton says automatically qualifies as pro Hillary and anti Barack. To say

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country...And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

It could be interpreted as Hillary and her Republican opponent are the people that love this country. Anyone else running (since there are only 3 still in the race) doesn't love the country as much as those two. So Hillary and McCain can be the two people who the voters ask "who is right on the issues"? Anyone else is involved in "all these other issues". All this other stuff is anything and everything that detracts from the focus of Hillary and McCain - it's subtle messaging - and it is an issue whenever Bill or Hillary speak about anything or anyone political.

Kevin, where in the world do you get such delusional posters?

The campaign is a wash. Obama will wind up the primary season with a lead of a handful of delegates, and the total vote will be within a few thousand--and that's without two large critical states being counted.

The Obama people may think that "backing in" to the nomination will work, but I doubt it.

This thing is far from over. If and when Obama wins, Hillary will drop out. But he has to beat her first, and he hasn't.

"This is ugly slander, and why would you, Kevin Drum, participate in spreading it?"

LOL... Only our delusional Mary could take a post that specifically points out the silliness of the accusation and somehow decide that Kevin is "spreading it". Mary, dear, you need to visit your doctor again; the medication is obviously not working.

When I see folks here agreeing with the cable TV crowd and NBC, that HRC should just quit, I think that's all the more reason to see her keep running.
Obama has a lead, but he can't win enough elected delegates to win a first ballot any more than she can. They both need the superdelegates so I don't see why she shouldn't keep at it.

“The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.�
Mr Obama ...drawing a sharp contrast with Mrs Clinton, suggesting she was not truthful and was "willing to say anything to get elected".
Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, about a million times about Gore just on "Hardball"

I am wondering if it's possible the Dems select a candidate OTHER than Obama or Hillary?

Is that something that can happen?

It is indeed a sad state of affairs. Polls show ever increasing numbers of both Obama and Clinton supporters who will bolt if their person doesnt win, but heavier on the Clinton side. As a Clinton supporter who also has great affection for Obama, my bottom line diagnosis: Clinton supporters reached a point where they had simply had enough. They have been verbally beaten, their candidate has been declared evil incarnate by substantial numbers of her own party, all while Obama people have decried the slightest criticisms, the press hates her, MSNBC has openly endorsed Obama and regularly disses Clinton. Clintonites are dissed and insulted on DailyKos, and people who say anything positive about her are immediately bludgeoned into silence. Add all this together, and her supporters, and a lot of women, are simply fed up, angry as heck, personally hurt, and ready to bolt or stay home.

Frankly, the toughest job Obama will have is uniting the party but it wont be because of anything the Clintons have done. I really didnt think it would turn out this way, and cable news and the comments sections of blogs take a big share of the blame. We have simply never had such a plethora of forums for people to spew hate and bile, and it has had the predictable result of hardening the attitude of those who feel they are being insulted and dissed.

Such silliness.

Yes, Obama is much more likely to beat McCain than Clinton.

Proof? Aside from the fact that he leads in pledged delegates, popular vote, and fundraising, the fact is there is only one way for Hillary to win the nomination at this point, and that is to be appointed by the superdelegates voting contrary to Democratic voters.

At which point, there is a very likely prospect that large numbers of African-American voters will simply stay home on election day. And who would blame them? I sure wouldn't, because I can't imagine how Hillary's "surprising" nomination win could be viewed by African-Americans as anything other than the Man stepping in and rigging the game, per usual.

Now, do we have to have an argument about whether or not a Democrat can win without the support of African-American voters? I hope not, because that's a stupid argument. We're talking about a quarter to a third of the Democratic base. No Democrat is going to the White House without their support.

Do you think any of the superdelegates don't understand the dynamic of how this is likely to play out if they throw the nomination to Clinton? I personally doubt it. But let's ask another question: if it was Edwards, or Dodd, or Richardson, or any other Democratic candidate in the position Hillary is in right now, do you think anyone would be pretending that they have a shot at the nomination? I doubt it.

I think Hillary Clinton probably could and will run for President again even if she loses the nomination this time.

Maybe that will call that an unprecedented thing (as far as her likelihood of getting the nod from the right people at that point). This situation isn't the same as the situations that have preceded it, though.

For one thing, if Barack manages to lose the general election somehow, it stands a chance of vindicating her campaign for arguing he couldn't win. Also Hillary wants to be President enough that I think she'd be willing to buck the trend. To sum up, if everyone finds that it's worth it for them for Hillary to run again, she will, despite the thick doses of CW we're getting from the blogosphere on this, through its increasingly iffy bloggers.

Maybe that will call that an unprecedented thing

Sorry, should have been 'Maybe some will call that an unprecedented thing'

But Matt is right to a large extent in that the Clinton's DO control the party in an extremely aggressive and counterproductive manner that reeks of the ugliness of Carl Rovism.

This was VERY obvious in the way the Clintons cold shouldered Howard Dean, the way the Clintons dragged out the false bravado of asking WHY Howard Dean hated the Clintons when it was quite clear that the exact opposite was true (a Rovism tactic) - so why did the Clintons HATE Howard Dean? Their treatment of Howard Dean was the exact kind of Carl Rove political hate tactics and scotched earth policies that has left a very bitter broken realm of distrust and personnal ruin. McCain is clearly having to forsake every decent principle he might every have had in order to run as the next GOP candidate, under Bush/Cheney's control, as we have all witnessed.

These Rovism tactics were very evident when the Clintons refused to even shakes hands with and/or acknowledge Howard Dean as new Chair of the DNC.

The Republican Party isn't about Bush/Cheney, and whatever Bush/Cheney say it is, but instead should be about conservative behavior, ideas and principles that the conservative party voters generate, however, under Cheney/Bush's tyranny, (for that is exactly what it is) the party has suffered a sharp decline in membership, and sees no reason to entertain conservative voter objectives nowadays. The Democratic Party isn't about whatever Hillary and Bill says it is, but rather whatever the voters say it is, which is exactly the way it should be, if indeed we still live in a democracy.

But she's not rooting for John McCain

REALLY, Hillary said McCain is the only OTHER candidate who can cross the threshold of Commander and Chief.

Seems to me, that Hillary has already crossed the threshold of rooting for John McCain over Obama. It looks exactly to me as if ruin for Obama is very much the game plan. What this all says to me is that Hillary is very intent on staying in the war in Iraq, same as the Bushies, so that trying to ruin Obama is exactly what she will try to do, along with Bushies Rovism tactics.

Matt is right.

I think that significant parts of the party -- the DLC types and the Israeli block -- have concerns about Obama. They will continue to back Hilliary as long as possible in the hope that Obama makes a mistake. As much as I dislike this, it may be good for the general election. It forces Obama to be better and if he were to stumble, there could be a natural move to Hilliary. I'm hoping that Obama does not stumble. It will be good for the party and the country if he becomes the next president.

One could argue that the Clinton campaign has been rather mild. The Obama campaign issued their famous (D-Punjab) not-for attribution press release in June of 2007. On February 1 Obama stated

"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

Once Obama acquires 2024 delegates it makes no sense for Clinton to continue. It is silly however to ask Clinton to drop out if the reasoning is that Obama cannot win the nomination unless Clinton drops out. Obama merely needs 2024 delegates: he should go out and get them.

Kevin,

I am a liberal and also a Hillary supporter. I appreciate your tone and the way you haven't gone completely nuts with villifying the Clintons even though you support Obama.

I think the Obama supporters are completely nuts and they are alienating people like me. They sound too much like Kucinich people. We need a big tent and all this Hillary bashing only helps the repubs. It certainly doesn't help the Obama people.

Set the old time machine back to 1995-1996 ... the 'triangulation' strategy meant running against both Democrats and Republicans. And in 96 (as in 94 and 98), Democrats lost seats in the House and Senate.

An Obama loss leaves the Clinton's in control of the party machinery, an Obama win puts them in the wilderness, does it not? The Clinton machine has always run in its own interest, why would we think that 2008 would be different?

The fact is that BOTH camps have supporters in comment threads like these where they bash the other candidate as though they were on a different team. One side is not really any nuttier than they other, both see slights and insults through the lens of their support for either HRC or Obama.

Personally? I've been a serious fencesitter for a while, wishing there were a way for them to be Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary in the fall. Clearly that is not going to happen now.

I now find myself in Obama's camp-- he does represent a clear, distinct different point of view. I've also come to the conclusion that Hillary has been so villified that as POTUS she couldn't reach across the aisle, they'd just slap her hand away. It doesn't matter if it's not her fault or unfair, it just is how it is. Hillary has negatives that can't be overcome no matter how much good she does.

So why is Bill Clinton saying that Clinton and McCain are the only two true patriots in this race?

I hear it so often (from older women,conservative dems): If not Hillary, then I vote for McCain.

Again as an outsider, I have to agree with Zoe Kentucky. The strong partisans on both side of the Left contest - Clinton and Obama - have been at each others throats, and contra their own partisan views, with about equal intensity (although obviously different narratives).

Come now, its hard knuckled competition, the various whinging on about how awful the others supporters are (cultists on the side of Obama, unprincipled gougers on the Clinton side) is really silly - amusing though.

Well, in any case, fight for your Congressional elections, can't have a McCain plus Republican congress, that would be terrible.

But let's ask another question: if it was Edwards, or Dodd, or Richardson, or any other Democratic candidate in the position Hillary is in right now, do you think anyone would be pretending that they have a shot at the nomination? I doubt it.

Are you kidding? If HALF the democratic party were supporting Edwards, Dodd or Richardson, who was only behind by a fraction of the pledged delegates and the other candidate had no chance of winning without superdelegates? NO ONE would be suggesting they withdraw. The only reason Clinton is getting this 'get out' shit from democrats is because they have internalized the Hate-Hillary propaganda from the noise machine.

Obama supporters, please keep in mind - half the party still supports Clinton. When you insist she withdraw, you are in effect telling her supporters to as well.

The Prairie Angel

So why is Bill Clinton saying that Clinton and McCain are the only two true patriots in this race?

This is bullshit and I'm tired of people propagating it. He was talking about the general election.

wb and others here draw on a true conservative frame, something that has been exploited by conservative liberals.

What bellumreggio said.

As for Kevin's point, and his plea that Obama supporters and CDS sufferers "all get a grip," I guess I don't much like dismissive terms like BDS and CDS, as they trivialize the outrageous behaviors of the person in question (in the case of these derangement syndromes, Bush and Clinton) causing ~derangement~ among otherwise decent and reasonable human beings.

Use of the term CDS also feeds into the conservative frames, as bellumreggio points out, exploited by conservative Dems and adopted uncritically, at times, by our good friend Kevin.

According to these essentially conservative frames, Obama and his supporters are prone to--well, here's a grab bag of derisive terms (please forgive the lack of parallelism)--swooning, irrationality, vilifiers, competely nuts, vile spewers of hate, deranged, blithering idiots, mouthers of a ~chimerical unity message~ (good one!), excreters of steaming pies, and so forth.

And that's just from Clinton supporters on this rather mild and vigorusly moderated thread.

The fact of the matter is Obama in 2008 is the superior candidate, a better campaigner across the board, with a superior message of change and hope perfectly suited to desperate times.

As for Hillary's motives, or strategy, for staying in the race, I see little more than a goal-oriented and ambitious candidate perhaps not too well served by an insular and highly competitive staff not quite grappling with the reality that they have lost this thing. It's hard to watch. Hillary may need some prayer warriors this Easter weekend.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Clinton. There is no reason make up new ones. Here were some reasons to vote against Clinton, all of which would have been valid on day one of this campaign.

1) She voted for the war, and has shown a DC-style innability to own up to it.

2) She's voted, on many occassions in a way that would lead many progressives to believe that her votes are more about positioning, than about deeply-held beliefs

3) She's benefited from nepotism, something that progressives should find abhorrent.

4) George H.W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George W. Bush. We're not a monarchy last time I checked.

I'm sure there are more reasons. These were mine.

I think the key point here is that Hillary can no longer win the nomination through her own efforts. She can still win it in the event of an Obama meltdown or an external event. That being said, I think from a partisan perspective she should be running a more positive campaign and/or attacking Obama from the left since those attacks are not as easy for the Republicans to recycle.
"Senator Obama would certainly be a better President than Senator McCain; I'm in the race because I think my experience will let me be better than either of them."
"Senator Obama supports NAFTA and says he wants to negotiate with big companies on your behalf. I'm not going to negotiate for you, I'm going to fight for you!"
"Senator Obama has a health care plan, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. My plan covers more people and eliminates free riders who want to game the system while they're healthy and then take advantage when they get sick "

These are all contrasts she could draw without hurting the party and while still keeping her positioned in case of an Obama stumble. And if the superdelegates do end up swinging the election to Clinton, the best hope of keeping African American voters in the Democratic party would be for the nomination to go to Obama's friendly rival instead of to his bitter adversary.

But, frankly, I think Hillary is at least as smart as I am. She knows this; she just doesn't care, and that's why I think Matt is right and Kevin is naive here.

That's a pretty good list, enozinho. I myself tried very hard to warm to her candidacy while looking at the range of terrific Dem candidates but was tripped up principally by your (2). I don't know who she is. I don't know what she believes. I don't think she'd bring change.

Here's another list, sent in an email this morning from a most astute friend and close political observer:

Thought I would share with you why I think Hillary finally and utterly lost the nomination last week. Perhaps you will disagree.

(1) No revotes in MI and FLA - she can't catch him on any metric. After PA - there will be no big turnaround events to be had

(2) Obama 's race speech demonstrated that he is a National leader to be contended with now and forever- he is not going away and can not be marginalized

(3) Obama was vetted by the Chicago Papers and there was no there - he is being transparent and she will never be

(4) The new NAFTA dust up puts her credibility back in the spot light and she is already according to Gallup at less than 50% in the honesty department - no where to go but down, down, down - with revelations still to come on tax returns, library funding and earmarks

(5) Out of money and now with little hope of taking it without a convention fight - donors will not be eager to partake in the fiasco

(6) media is coming up to speed on what "her path" is really about - and superdelegates are not going to want any part of it

(7) Bill Richardson endorses Obama despite being called a "Judas" by Carville. Others will see that Hillary's hold on superdelegates is all about threats and tearing people down - enough is enough. Many more are likely to endorse before PA.

Can you add anything? I think she got her goose fired this week. I see she was home alone all day Friday and has no events scheduled today, tomorrow or Monday. A little R and R, perhaps? Or something else. - What are her options at this point?

FWIW, I don't disagree with my friend.

Hillary should definitely stay in the race.

Last night, on the McLaughlin Group on PBS the panel was polled about Hillary’s chances that she would be presiding over the Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn in 2009. Most panel members said that her chances were 50/50. Eleanor Clift said that, if she wins the nomination, her chances were 80%. John McLaughlin said that her chances were 55%.

John McLaughlin said that her chances were 55%.

Wrong!! The correct answer is, nobody watches the McLaughlin Group anymore. Bye-Bye.

You're missing the real story, Kevin. It's not Hillary who would do this. It's Mark Penn.

Here's the evidence you seek.

One cannot arge with any degree of intellectual honestly that the Clinton campaign has been mild.

When Obama said tht some of his supporters might ot stick around for HRC he was referring to the new voters and the indepenndents that he has attracted. And he is probably right.

This is all very exciting! Can I play, too?

Here's my entry:
Kevin,

I am a liberal and although I was originally an Edwards supporter, I am now an Obama supporter. However, I appreciate your tone and the way you haven't gone completely nuts with vilifying the Clintons even though you support Obama.

I think the Clinton supporters are completely nuts and they are alienating people like me. They sound too much like Republicans. We need a big tent and all this Obama bashing only helps the Repubs. It certainly doesn't help the Clinton people.

(Kevin, this is a great contest idea. You forgot to tell folks to be sure to submit their entries before the closing deadline of March 24, 2008. No entries submitted after that time will be considered. In fact, we don't even want to hear about them after that time. SRSLY.)

The general election is EIGHT MONTHS away, yet we Democrats are already panicking. Assuming Obama gets the nomination in the end, I don't think he has been damaged by the primary at all.

In fact, compare his early debate performances with his last couple. When this is all over, he should make sure to thank Hillary profusely for staying in long enough for him to learn how to run a contested election (something he has scarily little experience in).

*If* someone really just wanted to enjoy a nice fat conspiracy theory they'd knit together a nice scenario where Senator Clinton, seeing the writing on the wall, continues to undercut Senator Obama on issues, especially, of foreign policy inexperience, skin color, class, and religion right up till... Senator McCain nominates her to be his running mate in a "maverick" twist on last cycle's Kerry -> McCain "unity" story. [*]

Such a move would thrill: journalists, disappointed Bloomberg "centerist party" backers, embarrassed-to-admit-it racists, neo-conservatives of the Joe Lieberman stripe, paleo-feminists, the Clintons, and, of course, Mark Penn. Heck, even the immigration-reform folks might be happy.

- Currently marginalized “Centerists� would get their dream ticket.

- Uncomfortable “Bradley-effect� Democratics would be relieved to have a reason not to vote for a person of color.

- Joe Leiberman / Jamie Kirchick types would obviously prefer someone who lacks foreign-policy self-confidence and therefore acts excessively hawkish in a position of influence instead of someone confident enough to... eww!... consider diplomacy.

- Ferarro-style paleo-feminists (though not younger, politically progressive feminists) would prefer another chance at a-woman-any-woman in the #2 spot over no chance at all.

- The Clintons would be thrilled, of course since not only could they have almost free, Cheney-style reign in the power vacuum left by McCain’s clueless indifference to domestic policy, but in actuarial terms chances would be very good that she’d ascend to the Oval Office sometime *before* 2012.

- Oh yeah, and finally Mark Penn would be thrilled because his billing and employee oversight would be streamlined. So see? Plenty of ammunition for conspiracists!

- A number of immigration reform folks evidently hope (as Mickey Kaus and other opponents fear) that a combination of McCain and Democrats in the House and Senate probably offers the best policy outcome.

That's not to say Clinton is up to any such thing but it is to say that *if* Yglesias is just spinning conspiracies for the fun of it he's not putting very much effort into it.

figleaf

[*] Nevermind that votes gained from the proposed new coalition probably wouldn’t offset those lost by the hard-core Reds. Why hold this conspiracy to any higher standards than usual?

The truly unfortunate thing for me as that I have lost most all respect for both Bill and Hillary. Currently, I wouldn't vote for EITHER of them for my village dog catcher; let alone President of the United States.

This is from someone who worked hard in both Clinton campaigns and in the Gore campaign in 2000. They have truly tarnished their already mixed legacy...

When this is all over, he should make sure to thank Hillary profusely for staying in long enough for him to learn how to run a contested election (something he has scarily little experience in).

That "conventional wisdom" is actually not true. Obama got his arse kicked by Bobby Rush in 2000 running a thoroughly lousy campaign, and apparently took its lessons to heart. He had no opposition to speak of going up against Alan Keyes in the 2004 general, but contrary to revisionists, it took some doing to win the 2004 primary. He was up against several strong candidates, including Gery Chico, endorsed by Daley; Tom Hynes, backed by the resources of most of the rest of the Machine (yes, these days there are sometimes divisions in the machinery); Maria Pappas, who had a name and a few supporters of her own; and Blair Hull, who was backed by nobody but spent a gazillion dollars on the primary.

Because of the sheer immensity of his spending, I think Hull would have won if he'd not been forced to drop out (others disagree and think Obama would have), but even after he did, Obama had to work for that win. That primary was no cakewalk.

It would be more accurate to say that HRC has never run in a hotly contested election until now, although Lazio did put up some fight in 2000. However, I do agree that what she's giving Obama now is something he needs to go through.

I see she was home alone all day Friday and has no events scheduled today, tomorrow or Monday. A little R and R, perhaps? Or something else. - paxr55 at 1:41 pm.

Maybe Hillary is a little more in touch with her supporters than you are. This is Easter weekend and Friday was Good Friday, a very important day in the liturgical calendar for a lot of church goers.

That was hilarious, figleaf. I particularly enjoyed Oh yeah, and finally Mark Penn would be thrilled because his billing and employee oversight would be streamlined. So see?

Channeling Bob Somerby, I wonder when it was that HRC's poll lead started to diminish? Why I think it was the 10/30/07 debate when Timmeh and Bri-Bri gangbanged her on TV. When invited, in the very first question, to take a stick and beat her with it, did Obama refuse? No, he didn't and neither did Edwards wen he was offered the same opportunity.
It was Bill Richardson who was man enough to say no.
Oh yeah, it's all about how evil HRC is and how noble Obama is. My side gooood, your side baaaad.

Read this Daily Howlerand, of course, all the others. Here's a tease: OBAMA: This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign.... We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. ...
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

Shorter Obama: Race only becomes divisive when it starts to hurt me! All that race-baiting aimed at the Clintons? That was OK, this text implies. At least, that’s how it struck us.

Does anyone actually agree with this statement?

I can't help but recognize that the call to shut down the nomination battle before all the votes are counted, hopefully a position held by a vocal minority, is unfortunately reminiscent of the Bush supporters mantra against Gore in Dec of 2000.

Jerome Armstrong

Hey Jerry, yeah you, way up there at the top. You are obviously an HRC supporter as you're pounding on that Popular Vote Meme. First, no states caucus in the GE, OK? No comparison there. Caucus votes (since in absolute size are smaller in number) are weighted by the pledged delegates. Get it? It's the pledged delegates that count, period. This is not a tie, but if the SDs are going to break a "tie" of course they are going to do it in accordance with the pledged delegate counts, not the so-called "popular vote".

They will do this, because to do otherwise would just be madness for the party as a whole. Richardson has now pointed the way and we will see Obama's remarkable SD trend accelerate. Somebody has to shut down HRC before she damages our own party's candidate irreparably.

As Sherlock Holmes famously deduced, when all possible alternatives have been examined and discarded, the explanation that remains, no matter how unlikely it seems, is the one to accept.

Does the lack of fingerprints on the weapon her campaign is wielding prove her innocence? Hardly.

Why I think it was the 10/30/07 debate when Timmeh and Bri-Bri gangbanged her on TV.

You really might want to rethink that metaphor. Really.

Kevin, did you not receive the memo? The one that said Hitlery is a monster? A MONSTER!!!??? She is going to destroy New York City with her nuclear laser breath, Kevin!!! Are you objectively pro-destruction-of-New-York-City-with-nuclear-laser-breath??? I suppose you are. You also want to destroy the Democratic party and you hate all black people, all because of this one post. So there.

... I wonder when it was that HRC's poll lead started to diminish? Why I think it was the 10/30/07 debate when Timmeh and Bri-Bri gangbanged her on TV.

Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Then again, maybe her current status in the race has something to do with the fact that her campaign's ground organization in nearly every post-Super Tuesday contest has been little more than an afterthought; that -- with the exception of Nevada -- they've demonstrated little clue as to how to succeed in caucusing (leading them to the conclusion that caucuses are undemocratic and therefore shouldn't really count); and that her campaign has bled money like a sailor on shore leave, thereby forcing her into the red twice in the matter of just a few months. If she's the nominee, it'll be a testament to her fighting spirit -- but it'll also require that superdelegates overlook the pledged delegate count, (most likely) the popular vote -- and, ultimately, the fact that she's run a surprisingly shoddy campaign, paying not nearly enough attention to essential details while taking an alarming amount for granted. The only consolation is that she'd be up against McCain, who ran an even worse primary campaign.

I can't believe how weak kneed you Obamazooids get(and his campaign too, it seems)when anyone dares to say anything negative about Obama: the chosen one.

You all point a yell "MOMMY!" "Hillary is making fun of me again!" The wingnuts will exploit this weakness to no end.

And you know what, Obama does have less experience than Hillary, and McCain. His policies do resemble hers. And he will no more "change" politics in this country, baby steps or otherwise, than she will. It's all just talk.

Oh yeah, he does have big ears...mommy! elmo is making fun of my ears again!

Crybabies.

Crybabies.

That's pretty funny coming from the campaign that's list of supporters in the blogosphere is dwarfed by their list of people/states/polls/processes that don't count.

If we're going to resort to Elmo's playground analogies, this former independent is tired of the bullies on the Clinton side like Elmo. I read many blogs and there is just as much blind "Clinton mania" circulating as there is supposed Obamania. Calling supporters crybabies is a typical tactic designed to create hostility and intimidate rather than persuade. Enough!

"If the democrats lose to McCain, it's no big loss, it's in fact good for the party, it will strengthen it." -- Zoe

Let's face it, there is also clearly such a thing as Obama Derangement Syndrome as well now. And, I'm sorry, it's possible I'm biased, but among a subset of Clinton supporters, let's call them the Taylor Marsh/Larry Johnson brigades, there is a venom and hatred going far beyond the back-slapping and self-congratulation of the worst Obama supporters that I've seen so far. Maybe it's just that they're losing.

But you can spot them anywhere, they always start out by talking about the putative viciousness of Obama supporters, while spewing out more viciousness than I could have ever imagined Democrats saying about each other.

Comments like the one above are increasingly common. Personally, I think it's because they really believe the "inevitability" meme and its hard when a present that was promised you doesn't arrive.

emmarose,

I'm sure you're right--about Hillary being closer to her own supporters than I am. Still, it's a conspicuous schedule, even for an observant Methodist and presidential candidate during Easter week.

Since this thread started with a hit on Matt Yglesias, I thought would be nice to finish it off with a post that puts him in a better light.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/hillary_clinton_in_bosnia.php

I think you have it backwards: it seems to me that Yglesias is not putting forth a theory and then trying to buttress it; rather he is trying to explain an observed phenomenon. To wit, the Clinton campaign's continuing efforts to denigrate and diminish Obama's standing in general.

Why is Bill implying that Obama is not patriotic? Why is Mark Penn saying that he "hasn't passed the Commander-in-Chief test, or the steward of the economy test?" Why did Hillary imply that she and McCain are qualified to be C-in-C, but Obama isn't? Etc.

Hillary is running a risky and potentially damaging strategy to build up herself and McCain (so that it would appear that Obama couldn't beat McCain in November, one presumes), while tearing down Obama. And it doesn't appear that her campaign cares about the potential damage to the party should she not be the nominee. And it seems to me that that is what Yglesias is trying to explain.

You may agree or not, but in that context it's not quite as tinfoil-hat loony as you imply.

She'd no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda.

You are staggeringly naive. How can you follow politics for a living and not get how politics works? Certain people on the right and the left are hoping the other party wins for various reasons.

I realize this automatically means I have CDS, but try opening a history book. You might learn something about politics.

Without having read through the comments, this is my take on it--

I think Obama supporters are staging a set up. If they can convince enough people the evil Hillary is only staying in the race to harm Obama in the GE, IF Obama is the nominee, when he loses the GE, there ya go. All Hillary's fault.

This was written by a fellow Clarkie re: Hillary staying in the race:

A sports analogy Submitted by VaDem on March 22, 2008

In this season of athletic competition, each time I hear a call for Clinton to drop out because she's not ahead, I can't help but compare this to any number of sports competition. I was a competitive swimmer in my youth and I cannot imagine giving up on a 100 meter race with 25 meters to go when I was only 3 strokes behind. If you want to think of it in NCAA basketball terms, what would you think if UNC left the court when they were 6 points behind the challenger with 2 minutes to go? It's unheard of. Real leaders, solid champions don't quit til the buzzer sounds or the race is officially over. Screw the call to drop out "for the sake of the party". It's more for the sake of Barack! I say, keep your focus and keep going Hillary, for the sake of the country!

Silly BO made an absurd comment yesterday in an interview when he said "Hillary and Bill don't like to lose". I so wish the interviewer had asked, "Well, do YOU like to lose?"

CB @ 2:49PM "...shut down HRC before she damages our own party's candidate irrepairably."???
Since the convention chooses the nominee and the convention isn't until August; aren't you being just a tad bit presumptious?
You are, as so many other's who want HRC to quit now, simply showing your fear; fear that, unless Sen. Obama is handed the nomination now, he won't be the nominee. Apparently you fear that the convention, for whatever reason, won't pick Sen. Obama; even if he is leading in delegates and popular vote. Why? Why do supporters of Sen. Obama feel that he is such a poor politician? So inept that he can't get the nomination at a convention even leading in delegates and popular vote? It comes through in almost every post and causes me to wonder what the basis for such fears are.
As for being "divisive" or "hurting the party"; I call it for what it is - BS! I suppose the fact that there is so damn little difference politically between the two candidates is what is causing this adolescent hyperventilating. And like most teen-age storms, it will pass, leaving little or no trace behind.
Now, play nice.

Do you owe the Clinton's money?

She is absolutely trying to destroy Obama for the general election.

She has been using race, and now calling him un-American.

She is trying to scare white America into voting for a black President.

If you can's see this you are blind.

"Crybabies."

LOL.... Coming from a post that was basically just one long whine, I do so love the irony...

shortstop, no I think that's about right.
The Daily Howler: Two of Jack Welch’s most famous “Lost Boys� had been banging away at Candidate Clinton for about forty minutes now—much as they’d done with Candidate Gore just eight years before.
How about the question about Clinton adviser Gen. Claudia Kennedy.
RUSSERT (10/30/07): Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let’s talk about Iraq. One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was recently quoted saying, quote, “I don’t oppose the war. I have never heard Senator Clinton say ‘I oppose the war.’� Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

As it turns out, Russert was working extra hard to frame that insinuative question. Kennedy’s “recent� statement was made on October 6, and it was instantly disavowed, that same day, by Clinton and her campaign. (Emphasis is mine)(Spokesman Blake Zeff, in the October 7 New York Daily News: “Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn't end it, she will....

Russert and Williams got after HRC all night long and tried these 'gotcha" questions all night. So, yeah, I think the metaphor is about right.

junebug, the first primary was 1/3/08 in Iowa. Do you think that Clinton's lead change from Nov. to Jan. was because of better local organization alone? That the press coverage doesn't matter?

Sorry, Kevin,
If you don't think saying on 60 Minutes that Hillary would have to take Obama's word for it that he's not a Muslim; or that he's absolutely not a Muslim "as far as I know" is not evidence of plotting against Obama, then you are asleep. That's not even secret plotting; it's out in the open. Evidence, Kevin.

Well, Teej, I'm glad you included that Somerby comparison to Al Gore. Would you have used the term "gangbanging" to refer to what happened to Gore? I'm thinking no.

"Banging away at," "piling on" or "ganging up on" seem like perfectly useful terms to describe the phenomenon of several people engaging in gotcha-ing one person of either gender, and as a bonus, they lack the offensiveness of equating any kind of political interaction with multiple sexual assault.

The irony, of course, is that your choice of words has the effect of reducing Clinton to her female genitalia, not to mention to a helpless victim. If your intention in selecting group rape as an image for a (fair or unfair) heated political moment was to imply that Clinton is being unjustly treated because of her gender, there are more effective ways to do it than portraying her entire political persona as a powerless walking vagina.

PTS: "The extended primary is demonstrably hurting Obama's chances in the general election."

You've obviously confused the word "evidence" with "opinion."

Anyway, snark aside, it might do your heart good to recall some American political history here. In 1932, the popular New York Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt faced a brokered Democratic convention, and didn't secure the nomination until the delegates' 5th round of balloting. That didn't seem to hurt his chances too much in the general election against an incumbent president who presided over a wretched economy.

But in the meantime, it's apparent that Matt Yglesias and many other contemporary Democrats have all forgotten how to count to 2,025. And unless and until a candidate reaches that magic number of delegates, the nomination must and will remain open.

And further, the bald fact of the matter is that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are in any position to secure the nomination, respectively, without first garnering the support of a sufficient number of superdelegates to push them past the threshold of 2,025.

Kevin is naive in speaking with certainty about the Clintons' motives if Obama wins the nomination. What did they do to help Kerry win four years ago? The truth is that no one other than the Clintons' would know their true hopes and motivations, and it is easy enough to accept that they might want Obama to lose.

He is simply wrong in declaring that Hillary would have no chance in 2012. If one assumes obama loses, who then is the leading candidate for the nomination in 2012?

The truth is that no one other than the Clintons' would know their true hopes and motivations, and it is easy enough to accept that they might want Obama to lose.

It would lend greater support to her electability argument -- that Obama hadn't been sufficiently vetted, while she had been. It would give her a 4-year buffer -- time she could spend burnishing her progressive credentials in order to work down her AUMF vote. And she wouldn't be directly inheriting the enormous shitstorm awaiting whomever sits in the Oval Office next. A McCain administration wouldn't be any picnic, but it would be a far cry better than what we've got now. He's absolutely forced to deal with some of the mess that's been left, so her task wouldn't be nearly as Herculean in 2012.

He is simply wrong in declaring that Hillary would have no chance in 2012. If one assumes obama loses, who then is the leading candidate for the nomination in 2012?

Granted, lots happens in four years, and it's impossible to predict these kinds of things, but how much more nostalgic would folks be for a Clintonâ„¢ administration after 12 years of Republican rule? I can see the slogan already -- "Change -- the kind you already know."

Holy shit, not only am I agreeing with brian -- I'm expanding his arguments. Somebody call me a doctor -- or a priest.

What did they do to help Kerry win four years ago?
Well Bill Clinton went out on the campaign trail for Kerry six weeks after having heart bypass surgery. Perhaps you think that Clinton's heart bypass surgery was just an excuse so that he wouldn't have to campaign for Kerry much during October?

brian: "Kevin is naive in speaking with certainty about the Clintons' motives if Obama wins the nomination. What did they do to help Kerry win four years ago?"

Oh, absolutely, brian! Why, that fuckin' bastard Bill Clinton really had some nerve, having that heart attack just so he could undergo a quadruple bypass and screw John Kerry over!

junebug: "Holy shit, not only am I agreeing with brian -- I'm expanding his arguments. Somebody call me a doctor -- or a priest."

If you really need a shot of something and / or spiritual advice, might I instead suggest a visit to your friendly neighborhood bartender? Then you'll get two for the price of one.

Calling supporters crybabies is a typical tactic designed to create hostility and intimidate rather than persuade. Enough!

I didn't invent the game, PaulB did. I just play it better than most...

Crybabies.

I just play it better than most...

It just seems that way to you after the fourth beer.

I'm on my fifth...

Kevin seriously. It's posts like this one that show why repubs kick our azz all the time. We have posts like yours which seem to exist in some alternate universe where in spite of all the damage Hillary is doing to our party folks like you just have their heads in the clouds about what's really happening.

The truth is this, kevin-the repubs were right about the Clintons; they are a bunch of egomaniacs who care about themselves above any and everything else and if that means they have to tear the Party down in pursuit of their 10% or so chance of winning then so be it.

When we're all sitting around in mid November wondering how Mccain won the election I want you to remember that you wrote this post.

From Donald: It's apparent that Matt Yglesias and many other contemporary Democrats have all forgotten how to count to 2,025....neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are in any position to secure the nomination, respectively.

It's also apparent that Obama is leading in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote, AND Hillary has virtually no chance of catching him in any one of those categories. Any other Democratic candidate would have bowed out gracefully by now, realizing that it's pointless and harmful to OUR candidate to continue on.

The Obamaites are true to the rule that Somerby always writes about: that one can say anything about the Clintons.

And they're supposed to be the idealistic ones. Yeah, right.

If HRC is such an irrelevancy, why does Obama continue to campaign against her?

Joe: "It's also apparent that Obama is leading in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote, AND Hillary has virtually no chance of catching him in any one of those categories. Any other Democratic candidate would have bowed out gracefully by now, realizing that it's pointless and harmful to OUR candidate to continue on."

Why should she? Even though he's the acknowledged frontrunner, until Barack Obama hits the magic number of 2,025, he's not officially "OUR candidate" yet; he merely remains your stated preference.

This isn't like horseshoes, where you're a winner merely by being the closest to the stake. It's essentially meaningless for Obama to claim to have the support of 1,800 to 1,900 delegates overall at the end of the primary process. It is also incumbent upon him to gain the support of the requisite number of uncommitted superdelegates necessary to get him to 2,025.

If Obama can't convince enough superdelegates to put him over the top and thus put Hillary Clinton away, he's not going to win. It's really that simple. He's like a baseball pitcher who needs to get the third and final out to end the game. Absent that third out, the inning continues.

Superdelegates aren't bound to a candidate on the first ballot like the pledged delegates from the various states and territories; they can support whomever they please, and are free to change their minds as they will. Further, if neither candidate can get to 2,025 on the first ballot, both sides are then free to lobby the other candidate's pledged delegates, who are free to support whom they please -- or the delegates themselves may decide to spurn both candidates in favor of drafting someone else as nominee, such as Al Gore.

Therefore, it's either 2,025 or bust. You may not like it, but them's the party rules.

Both Hillary and Obama are historic candidates. Too bad one of them has to lose.

Hillary and Obama supporters, let's not sacrifice the good for the best. Vote for the democrat in November.

If indeed Obama is the certain winner, as Obama supporters maintain, why the desperation to have Clinton give up the fight before Obama reaches that certain goal of 2025 delegates?

If he's going to win the pledged delegate count, and the popular vote count, and every other relevant metric, why not let him in fact achieve those very goals, and then use them as the evidence Obama needs to convince not only the superdelegates, but also Hillary's supporters that he is indeed the legitimate winner, and should be the nominee? Why deny superdelegates and Hillary supporters -- not to mention themselves -- that compelling and fully established evidence?

The only thing I can conclude is that they really aren't half as "certain" as they pretend to be that Obama is going to win on every relevant measure. Otherwise I'd think they'd simply want it to come to fruition so that they could collect their prize without any doubt about its having been legitimately won.

Of course, they want to maintain that Hillary does Obama terrible harm by staying the race. Yet of course by far the greatest harm done to Obama was based entirely on something of his own doing -- his 20 year relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps that might suggest that the real pitfalls Obama would encounter in the general election are likely to crop up whether or not Hillary has any hand in raising them as issues. One gets the impression that on some level, many Obama's supporters basically just can't stand the idea that anyone would presume to criticize their guy, under any circumstances, and that they consider each instance of such criticism an abomination. I've never seen a political bunch so devoted to a candidate's protection, or a candidate who seems so aggrieved at every criticism he encounters (with the possible exception of George W Bush), and so expectant that he will receive protection.

It's kind of interesting to me that it was immediately after the Jeremiah Wright issue came up that the argument that Hillary should drop out once again got pushed hard. We haven't had a single primary since that revelation. Perhaps we should see how that issue resonates in PA and other states before we declare the race over?

Right on Kevin!

I am sick to death of the nasty insinuations. How does Harvard grad Yglesias possibly make the equivocations he does and support a campaign of hope and optimism. Obama needs to take responsibility for his proxies. You don't take the high road if you direct an army of people to burn the ground to the sea after you walk by.

Reality check: March 4 was the first campaign date in which Clinton won more delegates than Obama--and that was only a small handful--6, if the math is correct.

So what makes anyone think she'll make up the 160 delegate difference when only 10 states and territories are left to vote? And Obama is ahead in the national polls? And he's shown no indication of lazing around Chicago for the next three months instead of campaigning?

Jesus, is this shit still going on over here?

Let me repeat: there's only one way at this point for Hillary to win the nomination, and that's through the superdelegates. Ok, fine and good, that's within the rules. But how do you think the party's largest voting bloc will feel about that kind of a win when the candidate they have overwhelmingly supported has won on pledged delegates and votes cast, only to see a victory fairly won snatched away by the party powers-that-be? Not too happy would be my guess. Unhappy enough, in fact, that I fully expect many of them to stay home on election day... and who could blame them?

So go ahead and crow about how "no one has won yet" and "it ain't over till it's over"...because anyone who's paying attention knows that a with a win of the type described above, it most assuredly will be over and you can say hello to at least 4 years of President McCain. Anyone who is being honest about how this is likely to play out knows I'm right about this. You cannot flip the finger to the biggest voting bloc in the party and expect them to turn out enthusiastically to support the candidate who elbowed their guy out of the way by playing the party insiders. African-Americans have for years gotten less from the Democrats than their loyal support has earned them, and don't think they don't know it. I know it, Hillary knows it, the superdelegates know it, and anyone who's being honest about this whole thing knows it. It is the very height of foolishness to encourage this to continue, because we have, for the reason outlined above, reached the point where we have only one candidate who has a prayer of winning in November. Those of you who are urging that he be tossed aside or that we keep this farce going might as well be campaigning for McCain, because the end result will be the same.

I'm sorry your candidate didn't perform better; certainly you had every reason to expect she would, and perhaps if she had not relied so heavily on the same insiders who have covered the Democratic Party in glory these past 30 years, she might have done much better. But that's all water under the bridge now. The choice before us now boils down to whether or not we tell AA voters to go stick it. If we do, we lose. It's just that simple. So instead of flinging all these accusations at people who supported the guy who's winning, please just face up to the fact that this is really the only remaining question. And then ask yourself whether supporting the amibition of your favored candidate is really worth 4 years of President McCain.

Posted by: Jennifer on March 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM

What she said. Hillary entered this race with the attitude that she couldn't lose the primary, that she was the inevitable Dem candidate just waiting to be annointed. She got outhustled and outmaneuvered by a better candidate who represents a clean break from the old entrenched group of Washington insiders and dynastic power.
She can only "win" the nomination if she pries it away from Obama in the most ugly fashion. Obama has the delegate lead and the popular vote lead--that's not a tie, he's winning and he'll continue to be the leader once the primaries end. I just hope that the Richardson endorsement results in more superdelegates for Obama so that it never comes down to Clinton "winning" that way.

Do you realize how hypocritical the Clinton camp looks when you complain about counting votes in Michigan and Florida, while at the same time arguing that it's okay if Clinton "wins" the nomination via unelected superdelegates while losing the popular vote and elected delegate count?

Happy Easter

You may not like it, but them's the party rules.

You sure seem to relish the prospect, which makes me wonder. Numerous posts have explained to you why taking this fight the whole way to the convention in August would be a complete disaster, but you still don't get it.
Keep repeating your explanation of "party rules"(funny how the Clinton camp wants to follow party rules re superdelegates but not when it comes to early primaries in FL and MI), especially to African Americans, and be sure to use that same smug attitude. After that, say hello to endless war and a Supreme Court full of Scalias.
But hey, at least we followed the party rules instead of behaving in a realistic manner.

Okay, shortstop, I take your point, but what Russert and Williams did was unconscionable. If I look at what they did, HR was powerless, wasn't she? The only help she could have gotten was from the other candidate who might have just stood up and no, this isn't a debate. But they just stood there and went long with it.
I apologize if my sensationalizing what happened offended you.
I would appreciate if you just used my handle, it's fewer letters than your trivialization, but all's fair I guess, huh?

If I look at what they did, HR was powerless, wasn't she? The only help she could have gotten was from the other candidate who might have just stood up and no, this isn't a debate.

No, I don't think she was powerless. I think she failed to use what power she had to tell the media to knock that shit off in less uncertain terms than she used. It was a tough spot for her, given that even the most even protestation was likely to be viewed by many as a frontrunner whining or carping, but whatever she did to defend herself had to be something she did. I think you're minimizing her and reducing her to a victim by suggesting that she needs a bunch of male candidates to ride to her rescue. I understand that you're motivated by sympathy, but I don't think you're doing her any favors.

I would appreciate if you just used my handle, it's fewer letters than your trivialization, but all's fair I guess, huh?

No, my intent, however poorly executed, was to friendly up the post a little. I didn't want to give the false impression that I was speaking in anger. Sorry that I failed in that; it wasn't my goal to offend you.

"I didn't invent the game, PaulB did."

Good lord, no. This game began on Usenet and local BBSs, well before the spread of the web, blogs, and public forums. Trolling, counter-trolling, whining, mocking, game-playing, etc., have been going on for literally decades.

Re: Jennifer,

Sounds like the tyranny of the majority to me. "We have to do what the largest voting bloc wants otherwise they will take their ball and go home." And who would blame them? Not when so many people have been disingenuously describing what is essentially a tie game as a slam dunk and who describe Clinton's actions as treason and describe Clinton as all sorts of things she is not. Corrupt, Vince Foster's murderer....

Paul,

It's been going on for decades, but it still doesn't make it right. Myself, I don't mind the mocking or even the insults, but I think the claims of "whine", "crybaby", and worse "troll" or "concern troll" are way past their due date. They basically are there to shut down dialog and I wish there was some nice name like "Godwin" that could be used by others to designate that the caller of whine, crybaby, troll, concern troll had just lost the argument.

Sorry to go off on you about this, but I hate this shit.

The only way to win is not to play....

But how do you think the party's largest voting bloc will feel about that kind of a win when the candidate they have overwhelmingly supported has won on pledged delegates and votes cast, only to see a victory fairly won snatched away by the party powers-that-be? Not too happy would be my guess. Unhappy enough, in fact, that I fully expect many of them to stay home on election day... and who could blame them?

It's even worse than that. Not only would the Democratic Party be turning its back on one of its most loyal constituencies (to say nothing of its principles), but it would be turning away the generation of 18-30-year-old voters that Obama has so effectively engaged with his message & campaign. It's no stretch to say that he's awakened a demographic that, for generations, has had little or no interest in organized politics. Should it come down to superdelegates overturning the pledged delegate & popular vote counts, there's little question that this demographic would turn their backs on the Democratic Party -- and probably politics, in general -- for years & years to come.

So if I sound full of doom & gloom, the fact is that I'm really not. I think that those superdelegates understand perfectly well the risks of overturning the will of the voters. It would be one thing if polling clearly indicated that Clinton is the stronger candidate in a head-to-head matchup with McCain. To date, we haven't seen anything like that. To be sure, polling this far out would be virtually worthless, but if it demonstrated anything in the way of her superior candidacy in the general election, most folks would be all over it. Instead, what she's offering as proof of her superior candidacy is the fact that she's been kicked around longer & harder than anybody else but she still has 52% approval ratings nationally, and that she might be able to win OH & PA, and Obama might not. That latter point might be a compelling argument if Obama didn't have other viable paths to the White House, but he does. So the long & short of it is that I'm not yet lying awake at night worrying about the questionable judgment of superdelegates. Unless Clinton starts racking up big margins, which doesn't appear to be very likely, their decision is nothing more than some pretty simple math.

jerry - I'm sorry if you don't find the situation as it currently exists entirely "fair"...few things in life ever are...but I'm just pointing out what the reality is. I would have had no problem casting a vote for Clinton, even though she wasn't my first choice, because my bottom line has been that we need to win. Unfortunately, because of the way things now stand, with Clinton, we cannot win. That's the reality, for the reason I stated. We can accept it and move forward to possible victory or reject it knowing that we will lose.

That is all.

shortstop, Sorry for the confusion, thanks for the effort. I'm not some fanatic supporter of HRC or Bill, I'm as troubled by the AUMF vote and its effect as anyone.
I will just mention a couple of things from the Howler, noting in the process that the Clintons have been regularly responding to the unwarranted press criticism (not that all is unwarranted) for some time to little effect.

Somerby: In the three-day Gallup polling which closed on September 19(2000), Gore was ahead by six.) But by the next week, Bush was leading Gore by two.
FINEMAN (9/21/00): The media pendulum swings, as you were pointing out before, Brian....
And Al Gore himself has a tendency to begin—when he's ahead especially, I think—talking down to the country like he's the kindergarten teacher talking to the class.

WILLIAMS: Howard,.... you bring up an interesting point. And boy, it does seem true over the years that the news media almost reserve the right to build up and tear down and change their minds and like an underdog. What's that about?

FINEMAN: Well, what it's about is the relentless search for news and the relentless search for friction in the story. I don't think the media was going to allow, just by its nature, the next seven weeks and the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign to be all about Al Gore's relentless triumphant march to the presidency.

We want a race, I suppose. If we have a bias of any kind, it's that we like to see a contest, and we like to see it down the end if we can. And I think that's partly the psychology at play here.

The Howler: On Monday, September 18, the Boston Globe broke its kooky, quote-free story about Gore’s deeply troubling remarks about the cost of doggy pills....USA Today’s Walter Shapiro told the world that Gore had made a “claim that must be labeled untrue� about that union lullaby! (Headline: ‘Untruthful’ label could dog Al Gore. Ha ha ha ha ha!) Suddenly, Gore was a Great Big Liar again—and the pundit world buzzed with its pleasing new tales.

"Now, it's true that Hillary has only a minuscule chance of winning the nomination at this point..."

The media should shut the fuck up about Hillary not being able to win. They were the ones saying Hillary was a shoo-in for month after month before.

They were the ones saying Hillary was a shoo-in for month after month before.

Yeah, before anyone actually started to vote. That's when things changed.

The man and women wanting to get pregnant need to be able to buy a bottle of solution that keeps semen-sperm alive. And this comes with a syringe about 1 foot long made of plastic. So without intercourse he can masterbate and pour the solution into the cup with his seed in it. Then she lifts her legs up and has the stuff squirted into her uterus. Lots of couples want to have a pregnancy without intercourse.

I probably haven't been paying enough attention, but pleaase forgive my asking: what's CDS?
My only guess was Clintonian Disfunction Syndrome. Did I guess right?

You're close, andhakar. It's shorthand for Clinton Derangement Syndrome, the state of mind that basically attributes all evil in the world to either or both of the Clintons.

But how do you think the party's largest voting bloc will feel about that kind of a win when the candidate they have overwhelmingly supported has won on pledged delegates and votes cast, only to see a victory fairly won snatched away by the party powers-that-be? Not too happy would be my guess. Unhappy enough, in fact, that I fully expect many of them to stay home on election day... and who could blame them?

But what happens when, conversely, the likely equally large (if not well larger) bloc of voters, the blue collar Democrats, choose not simply to stay home, but to vote for the Republican instead? Each vote swung from Democrat to Republican is of twice the force of a potential vote that isn't cast because someone stayed home -- and this latter possibility is by far the most likely outcome if African-Americans are upset in the choice of nominee.

What Obama supporters can never seem to come up with is a path to victory without his winning ANY of the states OH, PA, MI, or FL, short of a magical alignment of electoral planets. It of course isn't helpful that in MI and FL he had a hand -- which even his supporters now boast of, quite incredibly -- in sabotaging the possibilities of having their voice heard in the primary process.

I certainly wouldn't argue that it isn't a big problem for Hillary that A-A's would have a real problem with selecting her over Obama. I suppose I had hoped until recent times that a combined ticket with either one of them on top might get around the problems that Obama and Hillary have independently. I rather doubt that nowadays that's going to be helpful, since Obama now suffers under the burden of very real electoral baggage of Jeremiah Wright (which will hurt him mainly in the general).

But I can see at this time no real path whereby Obama could realistically win the general. Unless something dramatically changes, his prospects of winning the general would appear to be indeed far lower than Hillary's of winning the nomination.

Swan's real name is Scott H Florance?

Looks to me like obama can't beat Hillary and get the nomination on his own. And if you count FL and MI, she's whomping his ass on the real — electoral — count that is.

It's odd that obama supporters have joined the conservative media in calling the race before it's over — and just before Hillary is about to roll obama in consecutive victories. They can't stand the fact that Hillary beats them in coming races, embarrassing their candidate. I mean, has obama even won a primary state yet? Oh yea, only in heavily black states.

The whites will vote in droves for McCain against obama and his supporters will be wondering what the hell happened this November. That's not "racist" either, since you're not calling it racist for blacks to vote for obama in droves. Vote for Hillary if you want to win is the lesson of the day.

Next question is obvious:
Why is obama afraid of a re-vote in FL and MI so they're votes can be counted? This alone shows why he should not be president.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES!

I remember hearing that when the Bushies screamed it all the way to their buddies on the Supreme Court. Ewww.

Jake wrote:

"If you want to see the kind of anti-Obama fever swamp that some of the pro-Hillary people are swimming in, hike on over to No Quarter blog (http://noquarterusa.net). You might mistakenly think you've stumbled across a Freeper orgy, but you'd be wrong."

You have got to be kidding. This selective memory thing is more than a bit annoying.

Most of the liberal blogosphere has been pretty toxic with regards to Clinton and her supporters for months. You have to actively seek out a site or blog that is pro-Clinton. But the nastiest behavior that I have seen to date had come from a portion of the Obama base.

What I really wish I knew was how many of those folks are new to political dialogue. Or right-wing agitators.

The notion that HRC and her supporters -- particularly her husband -- are racists, "worse than Bush", out to break the party, etc. have been actively promoted by a segment of Obama supporters. Why is it that so many of you only notice when the other side pushes back? Why is it OK for you to treat other progressives like this?

And please ... before some starts citing all of the Clintons' supposed crimes ... which campaign had staff members or personal friends of the candidate walk up to reporters MONTHS AGO and ask "when are you going to start looking into his sex life?" Hint -- It wasn't the Clinton campaign.

Junebug wrote:
"It's even worse than that. Not only would the Democratic Party be turning its back on one of its most loyal constituencies (to say nothing of its principles), but it would be turning away the generation of 18-30-year-old voters that Obama has so effectively engaged with his message & campaign. It's no stretch to say that he's awakened a demographic that, for generations, has had little or no interest in organized politics."

Perhaps ... but what happens when they realize that he is just a man ... just a politican? One who, if he is going to get anything done, will need to compromise, to accomodate, to settle for what can be done at a given moment in time?

Many of the youngest and most fanatical Obama supporters DO NOT understand that this is part of the political process.

A few weeks back, Obama gave a speech in Fort Worth. One of my co-worker's kids came up from Austin with a dozen friends from UT the night before [... so they could stand in line all night to make sure they got in]. Margaret invited me to come along to lunch with this group since I was "just" a decade older and had been politically engaged since I was a teenager myself. What became apparent as we chatted was that these kids believe that if Obama wins the presidency:

(1) the troops in Iraq will be home within three months

(2) Obama can APPOINT Clinton to the position of Senate Majority Leader ... "because that job is a lot more appropriate to a pushy old chick" or conversely take her Senate "job" away from her (despite the fact that she was just re-elected 2 years ago)

I love how morons point out that Huber Humphrey only barely lost the election. As if that enforces their point. They claim that Humphrey merely needed to distance himself from LBJ to have won it.

I ask these morons: Do you even remember what that argument was about in the first place?

If Hubert Humphrey had been running against the war, there wouldn't have been an argument in the first place.

Also, there's a fairly massive difference between pre-primary conventions and post-primary conventions. People become more emotionally invested when they actually get to vote for someone. On a psychological level, it's just not the same. Fewer people care when a process everyone already assumed would be a smoke-filled room turns out to be one than are going to care when a party completely ignored a democratically held election. They aren't remotely comprable.

Democrats have not one a single Presidential election following a close primary since the primary process was instituted in 1972. Those elections are a lot more relevant than 1968, and I'm pretty sure a united party would have won 68.

look at recent history everytime the primary went unsettled until the convention .. winner of nomination went on to lose in general

1976 Ford /Reagan
1980 Carter /Kennedy
1984 Mondale /Hart

... but what happens when they realize that he is just a man ... just a politican? One who, if he is going to get anything done, will need to compromise, to accomodate, to settle for what can be done at a given moment in time?

Oops, I forgot that part about anyone supporting Obama confusing him for the Messiah... or was it the Hidden Imam? (I can't quite get straight on whether he's Christian or Muslim.) Thanks, though, for the timely reminder that he's running for office. In all seriousness, though, seeing as one of the major facets of Obama's campaign has been reaching out for disenfranchised independents & Republicans -- many of whom have demonstrated a receptiveness to his message -- from where exactly do you get the idea that his emphasis on bipartisanship is lost on those who support him?

Many of the youngest and most fanatical Obama supporters DO NOT understand that this is part of the political process.

Brilliant. Here's a thought: many of the most fanatical supporters of ANYONE -- whether young, middle-aged, or elderly -- don't understand the political process. I'd go further and say that a fair percentage of people who vote don't understand any number of political processes, whether it's cloture, earmarks, or the line-item veto. But I guess that interferes with your narrative that only folks who prefer Obama -- especially those gullible kids -- are dopey & wide-eyed naifs.

I'll grant you, though, that they might not be up to speed on the idea of delegates & superdelegates, and they might be more than a little surprised -- even outraged -- if the candidate to whom they contributed, the candidate for whom they busted their asses campaigning, the candidate for whom they made countless phone calls, the candidate for whom they canvassed door to door, the candidate for whom they caucused, the candidate who won the most pledged delegates, the most votes, and the most state contests were to be denied the nomination. No, it's not terribly difficult to imagine them turning their backs on the entire process. But I guess that makes them naïve.

Anyway, if you'd like to provide more than your conversation with a handful of college kids as evidence for the ignorance of this younger demographic, I'm all ears.

Obama now suffers under the burden of very real electoral baggage of Jeremiah Wright (which will hurt him mainly in the general).

Seeing as how his speech in Philadelphia was well received by everyone but Foxnews and the Clinton campaign, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And the notion that voters in MI, PA, and OH aren't going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election because he lost the primaries(one where he wasn't even on the ballot, but I guess that's you're idea of a fair election) is ludicrous.
Yeah, all the blue collar Dems are going to be so turned off by Obama that they're actually going to vote for the Republican candidate who will continue the war and the failed economic policies of the Bush administration. They will vote FOR the candidate who told them that their jobs won't be returning to Michigan.
I'm sure that all makes perfect sense...in your warped mind. You suffer from a different form of CDS, one where only Hillary Clinton could possibly win despite all the evidence to the contrary.

March 4 was the first campaign date in which Clinton won more delegates than Obama--and that was only a small handful--6, if the math is correct.

Yeah, and maybe she would pick up six, or even 12 more if they re-voted in MI and FL, and she'd still be trailing, and the folks with new CDS will still be telling us that she should be the nominee despite the fact that she wass still losing.
Only those with new CDS believe that the person with fewer points is in a tie with the person who has more points. It's the new math!

It's the new math!

Ringo, dude, it's the rules, not the math. You need 2025 to win, not a majority of the delegates.

Tell me, little drummer boy, do you think caucuses are just as illegitimate and supper delegates?

"Not only would the Democratic Party be turning its back on one of its most loyal constituencies"

Hmmm. I thought women and old people were some of the Democratic Party's most loyal constituencies too. That's part of the reason this is such a deadlock. Let's not forget that.

Kevin,

Despite your reputation/image as an expert, I find you very naive and very much a part of the system.

I am in my 50's and have gone through many disappointing cycles of too close to the trees to see the forest assessments. I believe that is where you are.

The Clintons have proven time after time that they do not consider anyone but themselves in their calculations. They, with their posse, left the Democratic party in a shambles and for all pratical matters left the country saddled with Bush and the behind the curtains string pullers.

I am tired of your "analysis". Signing off for good.

Evidence? Look at Clinton campaign statements:

1. Obama is not qualified to be Commander in Chief

I could go on, but what's the point. People are stunned and their reasoning ability immobilized by Obama's challenge to the status quo. Even today, when the deaths of 4,000 military was announced, Clinton is on TV saying she wouldn't have chosen Obama's pastor as her own!?

Compare that to John McCain's statement--an admirable case of leadership instead of pandering ("I know Senator Obama and he doesn't hold those views" of his pastor).

Here's a story: Clinton has 34 years of campaign experience--nearly triple the amount Obama has, and she hasn't clinched this nomination! Where's the analysis on the confluence of factors that blindsided the traditional political infrastructure of both parties? I mean, you have heavy weights from such disparate backgrounds as Newt Gingrich and Michael Bloomberg saying there has to be a change in how Americans tackle...well, America. But the media's all, "No, wait, we can't be sure this is really happening."

I'll concede to you that she may not be setting herself up for 2012, but she sure has stepped over the line in terms of setting Obama up lose. Then you have to ask, who stands to benefit from that, the Democrat Party? No. No. No. No.

NO, I DON'T SEE THE KING'S CLOTHING. And, the media is getting bolder everyday in reporting that they don't see it either.

I think that Barack Obama is an important politician who will stand up for black peoples rights. Military General Colin Powel looks black, hes got his hair so short I cant tell for sure.

If animal dies for pultry meat save his head his right paw his coller bone in sacred burail. 4 parts of the best prized flesh 3 inch each slice is to be in a small bottle in the best preservative fliud with a power crystal dropped into the bottle. And also that iis so the dreams he has of bieng empty as dust is not true but has omsosis back in time to when he sees his body grave in ESP coravouyent phycic visions.

Tired of finding the file through enormous amount of searchers? 1 center- 1 enter for Megaupload files downloading at http://megaupload.name/