Of course, this all assumes that Hillary Clinton decides not to be completely suicidal and take down the party in a huge ball of flames.

Whoops, too late.

Even the Clintons have to bow to reality eventually.

Is there any recent evidence of this?

Once the Primaries are over, Clinton will go after the Super Delegates, even trying to get those committed to Obama to change their mind. Then she'll cry foul when she doesn't get the nomination because she won most of the state that "matter."

Sen Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

call me an optimist — I suspect that at some point there's going to be a media backlash against McCain.

That'll require a bunch of cranky old white men giving up on a cranky old white man who's spent ten years flattering the hell out of them and signing on with a charismatic young black man who keeps himself at a distance.

You're an optimist.

If Hillary drags this out to the convention, and Obama emerges as a weakened nominee who loses in November, most Democrats will blame her and Bill. She will be as popular as Ralph Nader. She can forget about running for president in 2012. Surely the Clinton crime family is smart enough to see that?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
-Bill Clinton

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-Hillary Clinton

I wish I could agree with you, but I think it's become all too clear Hillary's never going to leave even though she's lost already, and effectively lost Pennsylvania yesterday. I don't believe there is anything we can tell her to convince her to drop out for the sake of Unity of the Democratic Party.

Party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi should be telling voters the horrible consequences of voting for Hillary but they lack the courage to do so. And I agree with Speed. If Obama loses in 2008, she and Bill will be blamed for the loss and rightly so.

Speed, they just don't care.

To Kevin's point, McCain's "internals" are lousy. And by that I am talking polling not physiology (though those may be suspect as well). There are a surprising number of Repubs who think that he is too old. Add to that he keeps making "old man" mistakes. His hard core support is not very deep nor broad.

If only the Dems can get this shit over with both quickly and with a modicum of dignity.

"Before long, I suspect that a lot of reporters are going to start recognizing his faux openness as more faux than open."

Yeah, and then, before long, I suspect that pigs will fly down to hell and ice skate around.

I don't think it matters what Clinton does. After June 3d, I think the superdelegates, the party and the media will make the decision for her.

"You are old, father William," the young man said,
"And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head --
Do you think, at your age, it is right?"

"In my youth," father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."

Courtesy of Lewis Carroll. Did I mention McCain was old?

This is his biggest liability. The idea that a 70-year-old guy with a pre-1960's mindset is going to lead us into the future is beyond belief. All the crises we face now were created by Old White Men. Why would we want to elect another one to get us out of the mess they made?

If at the outset of the convention Obama has the delegates (pledged + supers) to win the nomination on the first ballot- and he will, he's only something like 300 short right now- there's not a damn thing she can do about it.

I think candidates get points from the electorate for the ability to give a good speech, presented with a strong, confident and articulate voice. Listening to McCain on the stump is painful. Wooden, halting, seemingly unsure of the next sentence. His inflection is all wrong, the emphasis on words or particular syllables completely askew. He's a lousy public speaker. How much will it hurt him once it's a two person race and we see more of him? I hope a great deal.

Although there are obvious downsides to this prolonged struggle, there are positives as well. The campaigns are bringing in massive organizing campaigns, registering new democrats at a phenonmenal clip, and training a generation of democratic activists in all of these states how to run campaigns. The orgnaizing dollars alone will pay huge divdendes in November. Campaigns are not just won by media narratives and TV commercials, organization is key.

Of course, this all assumes that Hillary Clinton decides not to be completely suicidal and take down the party in a huge ball of flames. But I don't think she will. Even the Clintons have to bow to reality eventually.

At this point, what can occur between now and August that would cause Clinton to drop out?

She's not going to win. It's clear she's not going to win. It has been clear she's not going to win. Last night's result, which did not significantly cut into Obama's lead, actually made it clearer that she's not going to win.

So what are you imagining will get her out of the race before the convention?

Pound on McCain with the themes he will be a third term for W. Bush, will start more wars, endorses more defaults and thinks Americans without adequate health care do not deserve it. And those are just the moderate reasons to oppose him.

McCain will not only want to nuke Iran, he will want to nuke the border, nuke China, nuke Russia and nuke any domestic institutions that oppose all of his other nukes.

... I suspect that at some point there's going to be a press backlash against McCain. His media image is a bubble, sustained by a sort of childlike faith, and once that faith starts to wobble — something that may already have started — the bubble is likely to pop. Before long, I suspect that a lot of reporters are going to start recognizing his faux openness as more faux than open.

And behold the fireworks when that happens. The man has never, not once, been challenged by the press, and he's going to go 15 shades of apoplectic when they finally get around to a little long-overdue skepticism. Grab your popcorn and enjoy the show.

Once Obama is seen to have the delegates to win outright, she can stay as "in" as she wants- but she'll be ignored by the press a la Ron Paul because there will no longer be even a fictional "race" for them to tout.

You're all right. Hillary should bow out, even though she's continuing to win.

Only Hillary can make Obama look bad; the Republicans are incapable of attacks far worse than the tepid stuff Hillary is launching.

And if Hillary bows out, Obama will magically improve his numbers among working class voters, who currently find him anathema.

If that biyatch Hillary doesn't bow out after winning Indiana by 10 points, she's totally dividing the party.

I happen to agree that the eternal primary campaign has its positive points. For instance, Obama is not in some sort of cocoon waiting for the convention. Hillary is giving him a reason to remain in the public eye.

Anyway the eternal primary is helping the MSNBC and CNN improve their ratings.

His media image is a bubble, sustained by a sort of childlike faith, and once that faith starts to wobble — something that may already have started — the bubble is likely to pop.

I can buy most of your other points, and certainly want to, but as for the bubble - well, the bubble has lasted almost 8 years for Bush, even in the face of disaster after disaster after disaster. And McCain is even nicer to the press than Bush is. Why should his media bubble ever pop?

"At this point, what can occur between now and August that would cause Clinton to drop out?"

She could run out of money.

I don't think we have any reason to rest on our laurels.

Think of it as a floor, not a ceiling- the media hasn't even begun doing rigged debates between John McCain and Barack Obama, where McCain is going to be polished and Barack tarnished, yet. Ditto for the interviews. So far they've mostly focused on Hillary-- there was definitely something about Bill's presidency the powers that be (I'm not talking about the Lewinsky affair, of course) did not like.

He's at 45% now-- but once they start exposing the public to him in earnest and showing them "what a great guy he is," there's every reason to think they'll be able to peel off more people.

The Democratic nominee needs our help now as much as ever, and is going to continue to need our help. After two horrible Republican presidencies in a row, we surely cannot afford a continuation.

I think McCain has only one chance besides another 9/11, namely that voters might be persuaded that divided government is good enough for now.

that was me @ 1:47.

Once Obama is seen to have the delegates to win outright, she can stay as "in" as she wants- but she'll be ignored by the press a la Ron Paul because there will no longer be even a fictional "race" for them to tout.

Uhhhh... didn't that happen weeks ago? The press will do everything in its power to drag this race to the finish line in August.

I think you're missing another important point. When people answer pollsters, they like to manipulate the results a bit. I hate Hillary, so when asked recently whether I would voter for her against McCain, I said no. The truth is I would, and then pray for a good VP and a quick impeachment, but I would certainly not vote for a Republican. But I would rather have poll gawkers think she is unelectable. Based on exit polls last night, I don't think I'm alone. According to one (CBS, i think), 26% said they had graduate degrees or study. A small majority voted Hillary. Now who's kidding whom?

Of course, this all assumes that Hillary Clinton decides not to be completely suicidal and take down the party in a huge ball of flames. But I don't think she will. Even the Clintons have to bow to reality eventually. - Kevin

I really doubt it. I'm sure Clinton's attitude is, "I've worked at this like a trained seal for ten years. I'm not quitting this close to the finish line".

What's more — and go ahead, call me an optimist — I suspect that at some point there's going to be a press backlash against McCain

The future value of the press' only asset -- it's ability to whore itself -- is dependent on its reputation for staying bought today.

The price that the press can demand from those whom it's allegedly covering, in shrimp bought and bar tabs covered, will only go down if it is seen as fickle, or unreliable.

Good whores stay bought.

You're all right. Hillary should bow out, even though she's continuing to win.

A one-state-in-a-row streak, huh?

Of course, anything could happen, but I will be somewhat surprised if Obama beats McCain.

McCain *is* a weak candidate, for the reasons Mr. Drum lists: his age, his crankiness, his admission of economic illiteracy, his hawkishness at a time when average people are tired of other countries and an "America First" policy would be popular - kind of the wrong guy at the wrong time.

BUT... I think people use heuristics to vote, and I can see many (I hope few) might have difficulty feeling "comfortable" with Obama as President. He's just a very different candidate - there's no model for him. Leaving aside his ethnicity, any guy who was youngish-looking, thin, slightly dapper, very articulate (whose education shows so obviously), was engaged in community activism when younger (which can have a radical connotation), who speaks so openly of transformative change, would have a problem.

And he's "black" (bi-racial). And not in the Morgan Freeman, Danny Glover kind of old-wise-black-guy types that Americans know from the movies. He's young, kind of brash, and clearly hyper-smart. People (I think) like to have a reference point, a comfortable "type" to compare new people to. And I think Obama is just very different.

Hopefully it won't be a huge problem. I don't think people want a Republican anymore. But Obama might have some work to do to portray himself as a "regular" guy.

(Hillary's "type" might be more familiar to voters. But her type also has no antecedent as a president. CEO yes, but not president yet.)

Does anyone have the address for the website that shows how Kerry and Bush were doing in all the head-to-head public opinion polls for a year or so before the election? I found it once before, but now I can't for some reason. I thought it was on some big magazine's website that had a link to collections of polls on its main page.

I really wish I could share your optimism guys, but look at what happened last night - outspent 3 to 1 and with six weeks to touch every base against a last-gasp opponent, Obama loses by 10 points. And 53%!!!! of Hillary's voters say they won't vote for him in the general -- we have to face facts, Jeremiah Wright is Willie Horton on steroids, and Obama's evasions and obsfucations about his personal beliefs have broken the ribs of this campaign. I have a feeling he might get a very rude surprise in North Carolina -- if that happens the Republicans will go back to their first tier Senate and House prospects and start whispering the name Dukakis, trying to lure them back into the race...

I believe with every fiber of my being that the Obama that was running in February would have won this election going away, and changed this country for the better in so many ways, but there's always a snake in every garden for the Democrats.

My God, the whining going on all over the web! What do you Obamazooids think you will accomplish by hysterically whining all the time? Do you think that if you throw a big enough fit at the grocery store that mommy will let you have candy?

Of course anything bad that happens will be her and Bill's fault. Always have ace in the whole to use as an excuse! Losers.

Here we go: according to Zogby, Bush was polling in the low 40s against John Kerry as late as July and August '04. So we definitely have no reason to rest on our laurels, despite all the bizarre blog posts that seem to suggest otherwise.

Suicidal is having Obama as the democratic nominee!!!!

"Uhhhh... didn't that happen weeks ago?"

No. Obama needs enough pledged and super delegates for an outright win on the first ballot for Clinton to be convinced that the time has come to drop out, I suspect. At the moment, he's still a few hundred short.

"My God, the whining going on all over the web!"

Particularly on Clinton-supporting sites....

Um ... did you have a point?

"we have to face facts, Jeremiah Wright is Willie Horton on steroids"

That's not a fact; that's an opinion. And the polls do not support that opinion.

"and Obama's evasions and obsfucations about his personal beliefs have broken the ribs of this campaign."

That's also a wholly unsupported opinion. Perhaps you should learn the difference?

"I have a feeling he might get a very rude surprise in North Carolina"

The polls don't agree with you.

"if that happens the Republicans will go back to their first tier Senate and House prospects and start whispering the name Dukakis, trying to lure them back into the race..."

In many, I think most, cases, it's simply too late for that to happen. Nor would it help, anyway, since the Republican brand has been so badly damaged that even a Dukakis-style campaign isn't going to affect the state races much.

In any case, if Obama really does get his ass handed to him in North Carolina, it's a new race, and you may well see the super-delegates rethinking matters. I don't see that happening, though.

I wasn't making a point, PaulB, I was asking questions...

Maybe Hillary serves a very useful purpose - keeping Barack Obama alive. While Hillary is in the race, any racists that could not stomach a black president still have hope and no incentive to assassinate Barack. Once she concedes, that incentive grows exponentially and the Democrats lose an electable alternative if the racists are successful - Americans do not like a quitter.

BTW, when is someone going to start "swift boating" McCain for his collaboration with his Vietnamese captors? The man is a sitting duck for a "Manchurian Candidate" attack advert.

I wasn't making a point, PaulB...

Congratulations. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

PaulB - What other than Wright/bittergate/etc do you see keeping Obama from closing the deal? He was making inroads in places like Wisconsin with the beer drinking white lower middle class before the Wright thing broke, and now he can't connect. Hillary is doing everything she can to sabotage Obama with this group, doing the Republican's work for them, and the Bradley effect is going to make this hard for polls to track. I hope like hell I'm wrong, but I have a bad bad feeling about this.

Congratulations. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

Wow! You guys are hilarious! dungbeatle, I knew I had problems long ago...(Thank you Uncle Sam!)

Hillary is doing everything she can to sabotage Obama with this group

LOL, now Hillary can't go after the white beer drinking demographic without "sabotaging" Obama? What? Are they owed to him or something?

"PaulB - What other than Wright/bittergate/etc do you see keeping Obama from closing the deal?"

What is this "closing the deal" nonsense? It's a hard-fought campaign with people having very strong opinions. The party is simply divided. At this point, I doubt that there are too many people willing to change their minds, absent a new major scandal.

"He was making inroads in places like Wisconsin with the beer drinking white lower middle class before the Wright thing broke, and now he can't connect."

Um ... he narrowed Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania by 10 points or so, I believe, and improved against just about all of the demographics that she beat him with in Ohio. He'll win North Carolina handily and is likely to hold her to a draw in Indiana. Why on earth would you write his campaign's obituary at this stage?

"Hillary is doing everything she can to sabotage Obama with this group, doing the Republican's work for them, and the Bradley effect is going to make this hard for polls to track."

The polls so far just haven't shown that much Bradley effect, as far as I can tell, which is why few people are mentioning it anymore.

At this point, absent a miracle, Obama wins the nomination. Clinton is almost certainly going to win more states, but it's just too little, too late. If they split the remaining states, as seems likely, Obama wins. That's the problem with two strong candidates with very passionate supporters: someone has to lose.

Heh, consider how the Right will re-frame McCain's relationship with the Press. When he was an outsider, Rush et al brayed about "Saint McCain" who could do no wrong, etc. - essentially telling the truth that time. But now that McCain will be their party's candidate, they need to reverse that meme to put forth their usual whine about how the Press hates their man, etc. It should be both fun and disgusting to watch.

(BTW, even if Rush's "Operation Chaos" to get Republicans to register as Democrats, vote for Hillary to make it harder for Obama, isn't technically illegal as vote tampering - isn't it perhaps a form of fraud to incite to/register as something when you don't mean it, on official government documents? Is there an angle to use there? In any case, it is unethical to do such things.)

"PaulB, I was asking questions..."

No, actually, you weren't. You were basically posting mindless drivel just to troll. That's your prerogative, of course, just as it's ours to call you on it.

What other than Wright/bittergate/etc do you see keeping Obama from closing the deal?

I realize you weren't asking me, but this "closing the deal" euphemism is nothing but a convenient fiction created by the Clinton campaign to get people to overlook the fact that she's run one of the most disappointing campaigns in recent memory. She's used this euphemism in states where polling skewed heavily in her favor (TX, OH, & PA), but in each of those states Obama was able to narrow the polls significantly by the time voting came around -- even winning the delegate count in TX. The more appropriate question is why hasn't the Clinton™ brand, for all their experience, political savvy, and (once upon a time) financial resources, been able to close the deal since Super Tuesday?

I'm an Obama supporter, & I still think Obama would be a stronger candidate than Hilary. That being said, I belive people are unnecssarily hating on Hilary here. First of all, it's hardly unprecedented for a candidate trailing in delegates to stay in the race. Look at Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy (1980), & Gary Hary (1984), not to mention candidates like Jesse Jackson. I'd say that Hilary has at least as compelling a rationale to stay in the race as Hart & Kennedy did.

Second, there are benefits to a long primary campaign. It's exposed weaknesses that might not have been identified until much later, and gives Obama the chance to adjust his strategy accordingly. Thanks to the primary, we now know that Republicans are going to go after Obama as an "elitist". Now he can prepare for that line of attack. We know that Republicans are going to make an issue about William Ayres- don't you think it's better it come out in an April debate with Hilary rather than an October debate with McCain?

I'll start to get worried if the race goes on past June. Until then, let's chill out.

Well, PaulB, I guess it is just hard for you to see them as legitimate questions since you yourself are no whiner. But there sure as hell are a lot supporting Obama.

I agree if Obama holds where he is he will win, but what if he doesn't? What if he cracks under pressure? If he doesn't, fine, he wins, but to say Hillary should quit BEFORE that happens and that if he does crack then its the Clintons fault!!! Lord have mercy...

Peter H, if people would have followed your advise months ago Obama would already be the nominee...

"Well, PaulB, I guess it is just hard for you to see them as legitimate questions since you yourself are no whiner. But there sure as hell are a lot supporting Obama."

And there are a hell of a lot of them supporting Clinton, as well, which is why what you wrote was meaningless partisan trolling, not "legitimate questions." You didn't expect any "legitimate answers" to those "legitimate questions" and you know it.

What do you Obamazooids think you will accomplish by hysterically whining all the time?

Do you think that if you throw a big enough fit at the grocery store that mommy will let you have candy?

I guess it is just hard for you to see them as legitimate questions

Yes, yes it is.

"I agree if Obama holds where he is he will win, but what if he doesn't?"

You can say that about any candidate in any campaign at any time. Sooner or later, you have to make a judgment call about whether staying in helps or hurts you, and whether it helps or hurts the party's chances in November.

"What if he cracks under pressure?"

After all this time, after endless days, weeks, and months of campaigning over the entire country, this is basically a meaningless question. If he hasn't cracked before now, the odds of him doing so in any meaningful way in the next couple of months are virtually nil.

"I'd say that Hilary has at least as compelling a rationale to stay in the race as Hart & Kennedy did."

How did those campaigns play out in the months preceding the convention? In full-scale attack mode?

"Clinton is almost certainly going to win more states"

I phrased this badly. I did not mean that Clinton was going to win more states than Obama overall; I meant that she was going to win some of the remaining states in the primary (e.g., West Virginia).

If he hasn't cracked before now, the odds of him doing so in any meaningful way in the next couple of months are virtually nil.

What are you talking about? He just started to get vetted for Christ's sake! And he started stumbling as soon as he was.

I agree with your list but I'd add one more. I think it's possible that when more people find out that he called his wife a c*nt in front of reporters his "maverick" brand image will fade into oblivion.

"What are you talking about? He just started to get vetted for Christ's sake!"

If you mean "for the past couple months" as "just started", then sure. Where have you been?

"And he started stumbling as soon as he was."

Um, no. He actually handled the manufactured "controversy" over Wright quite well. He's had everything and the kitchen sink thrown at him over the past two months and his poll numbers have been largely unchanged. About the only thing you can point to is that he underperformed in the last debate and that he didn't "close the deal" in Pennsylvania. That's hardly grounds for optimism that he's going to "crack".

"but assuming that Hillary faces reality a little sooner than that,..."
You're the best comedy writer alive, bar none!

It is numerically impossible for Obama to have the delegates to win outright before the convention. He needs to reach that 2025 (or whatever the exact number is) needed to nominate and he cannot do that because Clinton has already won too many delegates. Of course, neither can Clinton reach the critical number. That is why the convention is important.

You Obama supporters seem to be conflating the good of your candidate with the good of the party and the nation. Obama winning will be good for Obama, but it will not destroy the party or the country if Clinton is the nominee. It will just disappoint Obama, and you guys. The rest is all campaign hype.

This "hurry up and nominate my candidate because I just can't stand to wait any more" hyperventilating is ridiculous.

That's hardly grounds for optimism that he's going to "crack".

It's not that he is "going to crack", it's that he "could crack". Especially if it gets to the convention. He needs to hold steady and be tough, but I think he will have a nervous break down. Most of his supporters surely will.

LOL, now Hillary can't go after the white beer drinking demographic....

Why is she going after them when they're not going to vote for her -- or any other Democrat -- anyways?

This quadrennial Democratic attempt to reattach the Reagan Democrats has done more to damage the Party in the last 20 years than anything the GOP has done.

Look, I've invested as much energy and aspiration in Obama as anyone on this board, but I'm realistic enough to see the trajectory of this campaign if Obama doesn't shake things up. I don't see how anyone can say the polls have been reliable on these issues -- yesterday one of the exit polls had Obama 5 points up, that's why the cable networks took a full hour saying the race was too close to call. If Obama loses in November we're all going to be reading about is these chicken-choking yaboos that are too racist to know what's good for them, and that's not going to be fair. A large enough chunk of those folks would have voted for Obama until they learned he supported a Pastor that claims white folks created AIDS or mocked our national catastrophe while the rubble was still smoldering. Wright is an ego-tripper, he's going to reinject himself in the national debate several times between now and the election.

"It's not that he is 'going to crack', it's that he 'could crack'."

Uh-huh ... and if pigs had wings, they "could" fly.

"Especially if it gets to the convention."

I rather doubt it will. There is far too much chance of irreparable damage to the November election to let it go that long. The bigwigs, as well as the voters, will be putting serious pressure on the superdelegates to resolve this in June.

"He needs to hold steady and be tough, but I think he will have a nervous break down."

Based entirely on wishful thinking. Good luck with that.

"Most of his supporters surely will."

Uh-huh... I can practically feel my own breakdown getting closer by the second. You did happen to notice that Obama's ahead, right? And that he has more money? And that Clinton has to get blowouts in the upcoming contests to change that and there is not even a remote sign of that occurring? So tell me, who's going to have the breakdown again?

Like I said ... good luck with that.

..and he's no war hero. Being shot down and captured is not heroic.

Heroic would be to spray his would-be capturers with AK -47 fire instead of dropping bombs and napalm on peasants and rice fields from high altitude.

Heroic would be going to Canada and not fight in that senseless war.

Heroic would be to get a pacifist deferment and not fight in that insane war where 50,000 Americans and 2 million Vietbamese died. For what?

Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning--she will not win the nomination and if, by hook and by crook, she does, she will not win the presidency.

Why?

Nomination--she has to win the delegate count--that's all that counts. She's now behind, will continue to be behind. The Supers are not going for her--in fact, they're going for Obama. Mathwise, she's done for. Of Course, Huckabee , the Republican nominee also saw that mathwise he couldn't win. He claimed he was a religion major, not a math major, Alas, he was done in by the math and withdrew.

The presidential campaign: Hillary has high negatives. (Over 40% surveyed don't like her). Many of the people who vote for her in the primary are really Republican McCain supporters--they vote for her because they think she will be easier to beat than Obama.

Finally, she's bad news. Why? The deadly 3R's--

She's really a Republican! She's self-righteous, and she's ruthless.

More:

Finally, I found Hillary Clinton out. The last straw came when she vowed to obliterate Iran if Iran attacked Israel. Then she attacked Move-On for being against the invasion of Afghanistan (they were neither for it or against it).

Sadly, the new Hillary Clinton has resurfaced as a born-again Republican. Ever since her days as a "Goldwater Girl" as well as the president of Wellesley College Republican club, Hillary was a known GOP'er. Recently she bonded with Murdoch and the right-wing Scaife Foundation..

I say good riddance to her. Let her do shots with Lieberman, be in bed with AIPAC, slobber over big money goons, dance with Rahm Emmanuel and Charles Schumer and the rest of the DLC apparatchiks, I am through with her! I'm for a Democratic party for the everyday person, the regular people who do the 9-5 thing or whatever. Call it the poor people's party of the party of just plain folks--let Hillary join the Party of the Rich--which we all know as the Republican party (and, sadly, most of the Democratic Party).

"I don't see how anyone can say the polls have been reliable on these issues"

It depends on which polls you're talking about. National polls pitting McCain against either Obama or Clinton? Meaningless. National polls pitting Obama against Clinton? Meaningless. Exit polls? Largely meaningless unless you know how to massage them properly.

Individual state polls pitting Obama against Clinton? Useful but not conclusive. Aggregates of the various polls for a given state? Reasonably accurate, as we saw yesterday.

"mocked our national catastrophe while the rubble was still smoldering."

Since that is not even remotely what he did, forgive me if I don't take this seriously.

"Wright is an ego-tripper, he's going to reinject himself in the national debate several times between now and the election"

Uh-huh, which is why he's "injected himself in the national debate" so much recently. Give me a break...

I tend to think Obama will do much better once he isn't engaged in a three-on-one fight. That would be Bill Clinton, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who are all attacking him. McCain has laid off Hillary and his campaign never has a negative word to say about her.

The hysteria that white, working class voters won't vote for Obama could be a problem for him. However, hasn't Hillary likewise shown that she can't attract the votes of young people, college educated Democrats and African Americans? Why is the fact one group is voting for Hillary such bad news for Obama but Hillary's failure with so many Democrats isn't bad news for her?

Why are blue collar whites, better known as "Reagan Democrats", the holy grail while the college educated, who are pretty reliable Democrats, are sneered at as elitists? Why are blacks, the most loyal Democrats that exist and who have voted for white Democrats for decades, simply dismissed as voting their color? Those whites are known as Reagan Democrats for a reason. That is that they vote Republican as often as not.

Could it be spin?

And that Clinton has to get blowouts in the upcoming contests...

PaulB, what is there about the # 2025 that you don't understand? The mathematics, sir, hold them both short, not just Clinton. But keep franticly yelling "HE HAS MORE DELEGATES!!!" Good luck with that.

Taking this to the convention will not destroy the party, no matter how much you complain that it will. Stop looking for excuses for her to quit and let the process play out. Whining about it hurts the party more than the length of the campaign.

John McCain is actually a very strong candidate, especially against an opponent like Sen. Clinton. He is liked and trusted; she is neither. He has credit with the media -- this is not a product of any "childlike faith" on the latter's part, simply a natural result of McCain's having been willing to answer lots of questions from lots of reporters, something neither Clinton nor Obama do if they can help it. And, of course, he has a record. That is sometimes (okay, often) a disadvantage in Presidential politics, but this year it could allow McCain to run on the theme that he has actually accomplished something in public life besides running for office, and his opponents haven't.

So far, so good for McCain. His strengths as a candidate, though, will be overwhelmed this year by his association with the violently unpopular Bush. He does have one potential, major weakness of his own as a candidate -- his age -- that general election voters aren't really dialed in on now and that Obama in particular ought to be able to exploit. But outside the voters who will always vote for any Democratic or any Republican, McCain will be viewed as the man seeking to continue the legacy of a President who by November will have been more unpopular for longer than any modern President. It's an impossible task.

There isn't a long list of reasons people will want to vote against John McCain. There won't need to be.

I have to agree with the anonymous poster @ 5:02 PM - "...This "hurry up and nominate my candidate because I just can't stand to wait anymore" hyperventilating is ridiculous." as well as the general tenor of PaulB's various posts.
Maybe my knowledge about the how conventions function is outdated but the fact that delegates have switched their votes, after the required first ballot vote for their pledged candidate, is certainly not unknown. And that is, I think, what Sen. Clinton wants to find out - can she persuade any delegates to move into her camp after the obligatory pledged vote.
That is the basic reason that the thought of the contest continuing until the convention doesn't worry me - to gain any regular delegate votes, Sen. Clinton would have to try wooing those delegations before the convention but after the primaries. Feelings will still be running high and frankly I don't see how she could carry it off. There are only so many deals, agreements and promises you can make before you simply sink into ridiculousness and become the carictature of an old-fashioned "pol". And the same applies to the superdelegates.
If Sen. Clinton did manage to switch enough delegates to get the nomination, she certainly would have earned the nomination. Of course, while Sen. Clinton would be trying to lure some of Sen. Obama's delegates into her camp, he could be doing the same with hers...
The only way for Sen. Clinton to "...take down the party in a huge ball of flames.", would be for her to stalk out of the convention, hoping her supporters would follow and I just can't see a politician of Sen. Clinton's caliber taking such a useless step. If the two candidates were sharply divided on the issues there might be a slight chance of her doing so, but they differ mainly on the hows of implementation, not the major points themselves. An "independent" run would toss the election to the Republicans, destroy any power and influence she has in the Democratic Party and gain her absolutely nothing.

Take One: Obama is the one for 2008, he can't lose.
Take Two: Maybe he will lose but it will be Hillary's fault.

Super delegates were invented to prevent disasters.

Whenever someone suggests that Hillary will see the light any day now and realize the inevitable I just keep thinking of how often I've seen the same predictions made about Bush and whatever reckless shenanigans he's up to at the time. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks is sensible, she's The Decider and she's decided to burn this house down if she doesn't get what she wants.

whalt has a point.

We're dealing with the Bill Clinton who was so good at helping his party that he lost control of the House for the first time since 1954.

We're dealing with the Bill Clinton who could have helped Gore's chances of becoming President by resigning over his perjury and public lying.

How much of this is deviously amoral pursuit of individual power, and how much of this is narcissistic self-deception, I don't know. But the game of chicken that's going on now is obvious. If they don't get the nomination, the Clintons are threatening to take Obama down with them.

Remember that they get *nothing* if Obama wins. They've burned many of their bridges, and the people who have burned bridges with them will be on the inside. But if Obama loses in November, HRC is in pole position for 2012 against an aging John McCain.

The Clintons have almost nothing to lose by behaving badly.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks is sensible, she's The Decider and she's decided to burn this house down if she doesn't get what she wants.

Forgive me for being misogynistic, whalt, but you're a little bitch. For you, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. You rule.

The original topic was the McCain bubble. I don't think we have to overcomplicate this thing. Right now the news has to do with the Democratic primary campaign. Editors aren't assigning tough pieces on McCain right now because it's not the time yet. Once the Democratic race is decided, attention will start to move to McCain and his negatives will increase enormously.

If Obama does get McGovernized/Dukakisized, at least you guys will have your excuse ready for the Democratic civil war that will ensue: It was Hillary's refusal to quit that fatally weakened him.

Yes, McCain's #s are going to go down. What does he tell the voters of Ohio, PA, etc? That their jobs are not coming back and that they should go to community college?

Go over to Talk Left. Her supporters say she will create a civil war at the convention even if Obama has 2024 before then.

She is Rasputin.
She will not die.
And she will take the party down with her.

...this all assumes that Hillary Clinton decides not to be completely suicidal and take down the party in a huge ball of flames.

I think Obama's got to pick up the pace, as he didn't look to good coming out of PA and I think it could really be a problem for him, and because all signs point to the fact that Hillary will not go quietly.

"He does have one potential, major weakness of his own as a candidate -- his age"

There is also the fact that his policies are overwhelmingly unpopular, that he knows nothing about domestic policy, that all he has to offer is more tax cuts for the wealthy and more war in Iraq, that he has totally abandoned his principles to be the panderer-in-chief ... I could easily go on. McCain has far more than "one ... major weakness."

"PaulB, what is there about the # 2025 that you don't understand?"

elmo, what is there about the fact that Obama is leading in delegates that you don't understand? And that Clinton cannot pull even?

"The mathematics, sir, hold them both short, not just Clinton."

The mathematics, sir, hold Clinton shorter than Obama.

"But keep franticly yelling "HE HAS MORE DELEGATES!!!" Good luck with that."

But keep franticly [sic] yelling "Obama's going to crack!!!" Good luck with that.

"Taking this to the convention will not destroy the party, no matter how much you complain that it will."

I didn't say it would destroy the party. You really ought to actually read what I write instead of listening to the voices in your head. I said it would destroy their chances in November. I stand by that statement.

"Stop looking for excuses for her to quit and let the process play out. Whining about it hurts the party more than the length of the campaign."

Stop ignoring the fact that, sooner or later, you have to make a judgment call about whether staying in helps or hurts you, and whether it helps or hurts the party's chances in November.

PaulB, what is there about the fact that Obama has to get 2025 delegates to win that you don't understand? And if they add Michigan and Florida, that # will be even higher. I'm sorry you don't like the rules, but for Christ's sake stop ignoring them.

Oh wait, you can't stop. Because you need to be able to say Hillary stole the election if she wins. Can't quite do that if you admit the rules as they are.

There is nothing, nothing, wrong with Senator Clinton contesting the rest of the primaries--it's called "democracy" (sorry for the snark, but those advocating her quitting are just too much sometimes).
After all the primaries are done, Clinton will have to decide whether she has a decent enough shot at winning the nomination that it will be worth all the politicking and intra-party battling it will take to secure it. In my opinion, which I think is mirrored by John Corzine, if she has the popular vote (including Florida, but not Michigan--as Senator Obama's name wasn't on the ballot there) then she has a strong case for the supers; if not, then the pledged delegates should be the decider.

"PaulB, what is there about the fact that Obama has to get 2025 delegates to win that you don't understand?"

elmo, what is there about the fact that Obama is leading in delegates that you don't understand? And that Clinton cannot pull even?

I can play silly games, too, elmo. Is that really all you have to offer, though?

"And if they add Michigan and Florida, that # will be even higher. I'm sorry you don't like the rules, but for Christ's sake stop ignoring them."

ROFL.... Coming from a Clinton supporter, that is a hilarious remark. The rest was just the usual partisan drivel, devoid of content. Come back when you're ready to deal with the damage to the election issue, the overwhelming unlikelihood of Obama "cracking," and the fact that Clinton has no path to victory.

You silly Obamazooid, I'm sorry Democracy is too tough for you. The only thing getting "damaged" is your ego. You Obamazooids may try to destroy the party, but it wont work.

If Obama wins, it will be because the super delegates went his way. If they don't go his way, he will lose. And there is nothing illegitimate about it. But you'll scream to the heavens that it is if they go Hillary's way. She has the popular vote now. And would have won it even if Obama hadn't taken his name off the ballot in Michigan.

Finally, yeah, I think it's a 50-50 chance Obama can't handle a convention fight, if he is anything like his supporters. That's what happens when you think you've already won but you haven't...