"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.

What a great rumor to start about Clinton -- what an excellent way to torpedo her chances among Democrats even more. No advantage to Obama if people believe this stuff about her, is there?

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

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.