"For now, the Clinton campaign is like a rushing linebacker who doesn't know the winning pass was thrown and caught."

Doesn't know? More like does know and WANTS to hurt the QB so badly that he might not be able to play next season when the teams will face off again.

Also, I haven't done the math, but what happens to the popular vote count if:

1.) Clinton wins PA by 20 points;
2.) Obama only wins NC by 5;
3.) Clinton wins IN by 15;
4.) Clinton wins WV by 25;
5.) Obama only wins OR by 8;
6.) Obama only wins MT by 15;
7.) Clinton wins PR by 20; and
8.) You count the FL popular vote but do not include the unreleased caucus vote totals?

If she can get to within 100,000 popular votes under that scenario, I could see a credible claim that MI could have put her over the top, and thus it is a tie. And I could see a further credible claim that a strong finish and a popular vote "tie" should count for something with the superdelegates.

She'll get crushed in November when African-American voters decide to stay home (and young voters to a lesser degree) and the GOP turnout is better than expected, but under that scenario, I think she could win the nomination.

Hillary had no chance a week ago..then.... hello Rev Wright.

We don't know what he chances are now because no one is voting yet, but if the bottom falls out of Obamas' new kind of candidate routine and he becomes just the latest jessie jackson and loses PA by 15-20 percent, then what happens. He's dropping like a stone in the National Polls
now.

What else don't we know? What ae we going to find out tomorrow about his other associations?

You don't hang with someone like Wright for 20 years without gettin' dirty...so to speak...

Never mind. Doing the math, I show that this above scenario would net Clinton about 730,000 votes, even before Puerto Rico and Florida. So she could be ahead in the popular vote even without FL. Also keep in mind that her landslides in most states would probably cut Obama's pledged lead in half.

So, under a scenario that is wildly favorable to Clinton, she ends up (but still remotely plausible, if only barely), she ends up ahead 100,000 or 400,000 in the popular vote (depending on whether you count Florida), behind by 70 or so delegates, with tremendous momentum. In that circumstance, I think she could get the superdelegates to vote for her.

Sorry, I'm an Obama supporter, but given that, I can't say that she doesn't have a chance.

And what's the probability for each of those outcomes? And does she need exactly that scenario to play out? If so, then what's the likelihood of all those events happening in concert?

I think the answer to those questions is what prompted VandeHei and Allen to say:
"People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet."

"And what's the probability for each of those outcomes?"

Well, say:

PA: 30% that she wins by 20.
NC: 20% that she keeps it within 5.
IN: 30% that she wins by at least 15.
WV: 30% that she wins by at least 25.

Just on those odds, I give her one chance in 200. Though as I noted in a second post, with the exception of PA, she doesn't have to do QUITE so well if you count FL.

So Obama reached 2025 today?
What happened to the 'math'?

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Good goddess!

Yet another in the weekly "Clinton Can't Win, Why Won't She Drop Out?!" series that have popped up since Iowa.

Look, do you really want to prematurely end this and tell PA voters thanks but no thanks, like Obama is doing with MI and FL? How many states do we want to piss off before the general election?

The argument can just as easily be made that Obama cannot win in the GE without the support of Clinton voters. His recent attempts to distract (the Clinton and Wright pics - LOL, Richardson, Passportgate) from his own difficulties notwithstanding, MORE Clinton voters are saying they'll not vote for Obama in the GE than do his voters regarding her.

BOTH Clinton and Obama have weak cases currently, and that's why we should let actual voters continue to decide. June leaves a good four months to go after McCain.

Also, you kinda make the case for states like FL and MI wanting to move their primaries up, if, in a tight race like this one, you ask for superdelegates to chime in sooner than later. You're saying that because you voted earlier, you're vote should count more, twice even.

Obama could be facing the perfect storm...collapsing poll numbers, bad press, slow news days with nothing new to talk about, and Rush Limbaugh.

I think Obama was getting anti-Hillary votes in prior primaries which swelled his white vote; but starting with Ohio/Texas, Rush Limbaugh has been urging Republicans to vote for Hillary.

So you could actually have 100,000 who would have voted for Obama due to Hillary hatred turn around and vote Hillary making it a 200,000 vote swing.

for a long period i was satisfied with either candidate: but no longer.

Hillary's praise of McCain, her campaign's tactics against Obama, her substantial overemphasis of her own 'experience' and statements that Obama isn't 'ready', her not-subtle dog whistle racism and other unforgivables make her dead meat even if she did somehow win the Dem. candidacy. I'd not mark my ballot in the Gen. Election before I'd support and reward her and her campaign's 'it's all about the Clinton's attitude'. She is destroying (if not destroyed already) the Dem. party's chances in Nov. Fuck her, and the campaign wagon she rode into town on - including her husband who i supported, liked, and admired in many ways.

I don't think I'm alone in this reaction to her selfish, do-anything-to-'win' attitude. Fuck her twice!

Disillusioned? You betcha. Fuck them all in the Clinton camp.

The above commenters are right. It looks at the moment as though Obama will recover from the Wright thing, but it's not certain, and there is still a (very small) chance that it will sink his candidacy in a dramatic way. In that case, Clinton could well win.

Of course, now that she has not only failed to speak out against the Wright smears, but actively tried to turn them to her advantage, I will not vote for in the general. Three days ago I would have.

Yet another in the weekly "Clinton Can't Win, Why Won't She Drop Out?!" series that have popped up since Iowa.

Joe made an incredibly liberal prediction on her odds of pulling out the fortuitous set of events that would propel her to the nomination. Most candidates would probably concede in the face of such odds given both the tactics necessary to pull off the feat and the potential ramifications of doing so.

"Of course, now that she has not only failed to speak out against the Wright smears, but actively tried to turn them to her advantage, I will not vote for in the general."

citation please

In the spirit of JimPortlandOR:

for a long period I was satisfied with either candidate: but no longer.

Obama's praise of Reagan, his campaign's tactics against Hillary, his substantial overemphasis of his own "post-partisanness" and statements that Hillary is "likeable enough", his not-subtle dog whistle homophobia, false accusatios of racism, and other unforgivables (for example, working hard the last week or two to make sure the voters of two hugely important for the GE states remain disenfranchised) make him dead meat even if he did somehow win the Dem. candidacy. I'd not mark my ballot in the Gen. Election before I'd support and reward him and his campaign's 'it's all about Obama attitude'. He is destroying (if not destroyed already) the Dem. party's chances in Nov (oh, and the chance for health care reform too). Fuck him, and the campaign wagon he rode into town on - including his wife who says she had never been proud to be an American in terms of politics, despite the good works of Bill Clinton, the person you supported, admired, and liked in many ways.

I don't think I'm alone in this reaction to his selfish, do-anything-to-'win' attitude. Fuck him twice!

Disillusioned? You betcha. Fuck them all in the Obama camp.

"Her decision to stay in the race has led to increasingly negative and increasingly divisive tactics because she is no longer the frontrunner. "

sorry, UA, but this is utter b.s.

"has led to"
care to draw that map for me?

Obama's problems now are his own and not Clinton-created.

He would be getting just as hurt by the Wright story as if she'd dropped out a month ago.

I think we can all agree that (1) it's tight as hell; (2) people on both sides are very committed; and (3) it's likely to be tight in the GE.

Has this ever happened, where there are 2 candidates so neck-and-neck? It would be nice if Obama had made provision for the fact that he'll need Clinton voters to win, the way Clinton has (the joint ticket suggestion).

Instead, he just shows arrogance: he thinks he'll win her voters, but she won't win his. Is that because he'd withhold endorsement from her?

I don't want African American voters to feel screwed; but that works both ways. My state is totally red, so my possible non-vote for Obama won't matter, and I won't feel very bad about it.

I buy your math, Ezra, but not sure I see why it's so damaging for the race to continue.

The Republican electoral strategy in every election of the past 30 yrs has been to accuse the Democratic nominee of possessing one or two character traits that voters dislike (indecisiveness, effeminacy, inauthenticity, pomposity), then spend day after day trying to reinforce the negative association in the voters' minds.

It seems to me there is at least as much to be gained by delaying the onset of this process (perhaps not completely, but propaganda requires simplicity & repetition, and it's tough to work the trick on two potential nominees at the same time) as there is lost by the supposed acrimony of the Clinton vs Obama battle.

If this is what it will take her, fine.

Can we all agree then that Hillary shouldn't drop out now, but if she doesn't win PA by 20, then she should?

Make sense? Good.

"""That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency""""

Or a bigger backlash from white voters...the general elections biggest constituency.

Joe:

what makes you think Clinton will win Indiana at all, let alone by 15 points? The type of white American that typically lives there (northern European descent, part of "Greater New England" is much more favorable to Obama than Clinton, and culturally the "cornhuskers" strike me as much more like Iowa than Ohio. Add to that the fact that Indian shares its largest border with Illinois, which means lots of media market overlap for year-round positive coverage of Obama and easy access for Obama's hordes of volunteers in his home state (just look at how well he did in the parts of Iowa that border Illinois) and not only do the possibilities of Clinton winning Indy by 15 seem remote, the possibilities of her winning at all are suspect. The only poll I've seen so far of the state showed Obama up 40-25. This far out? Has Obama ever lead in polls months in advance and then blown those leads?

Also, a lot of those projections will depend on turn-out. PA could have HUGE turn-out, 36% of the registered voters in a close primary, and she could win 60-40 and still got only 280,000 out of that. Obama's lead of 800,000+ is more than strong enough to withstand that.

"I think we can all agree that (1) it's tight as hell; (2) people on both sides are very committed; and (3) it's likely to be tight in the GE."

I'd dispute (1) and (3). Obama is up by about 6% in pledged delegates and 3.3% or so in terms of the popular vote. That's not a blowout or anything, but it's certainly not a supertight election -- the popular vote margin is about Bush's margin over Kerry in 2004, and the pledged delegate margin is double it. As for the general election, if Clinton wins in a scenario where Obama has more pledged delegates and more popular votes, then I don't think the general election will be particularly close. I think African-American turnout will be about 2/3 of 2000 and 2004 levels and the youth vote will see a similar drop, and McCain will win MI, WI, MN, OR, NH, and maybe WA (though Hillary will probably pick up Ohio).

"It would be nice if Obama had made provision for the fact that he'll need Clinton voters to win, the way Clinton has (the joint ticket suggestion)."

Why would Clinton accept? Hell, she'd be more likely to be McCain's VP.

"Instead, he just shows arrogance: he thinks he'll win her voters, but she won't win his. Is that because he'd withhold endorsement from her?

I don't want African American voters to feel screwed; but that works both ways."

You completely miss the point. African-American voters would feel screwed because their guy would have won by every important measure (pledged delegates most importantly, but also states and votes), yet the (perceived) white, rich party insiders would have picked a white, rich candidate instead. They wouldn't feel "screwed" in the sense that their preferred candidate lost (i.e., in the sense that Hillary's supporters would feel "screwed") -- they'd feel "screwed" in the sense that their guy won but was fundamentally cheated. Any Clinton supporters who try to compare the two scenarios are being utterly dishonest. The only question is whether they have evil motives, or whether they're just too dense to see it.

so, Joe,

Clinton wins NM but Richardson, a SuperDelegate, endorses Obama

Clinton wins MA, but Kerrey and Kennedy, SuperDelegates, endorse Obama

how is that not screwing over the Clinton voters of those respective states?

Like I said, with each candidate there comes weakness at this point. There is no point to rushing things now. If Obama or Clinton takes hits now, the other benefits. Once one of them drops out, those benefits will go to McCain instead.

Patience people.

care to draw that map for me?

"Insignificant states." Identity politics. 3 A.M. ad. Commander-in-chief threshold. Etc.

fh:

If one candidate has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, we're not "rushing" to anything.

That happens to be the case here.

fh,
Respectfully...what are you talking about? McCain is already reaping benefits of this prolonged infighting. He now beats BOTH Clinton and Obama in head to head match-ups, he's getting photo op's in Iraq, and the media, because of the Wright thing, isn't focusing on the fact that McCain seems to have no idea of what he's talking about in regards to al-Queda and Iran.

If both Dems are going to stay in it for the long haul, they need to also hit McCain. The more they tear into each other, the more material they give McCain in the general. Do you honestly believe it would be good for the Democrats to be picking a nominee at a contested convention in August , while McCain already has the party machine lining up behind him in March?

Talk of a unity ticket cannot happen. The only way it works in any form is if she's the presidential nominee and he's the V.P.--she would never accept being V.P. In order for Clinton to become the presidential nominee, she will have to have so damaged Obama that his political future is over, disqualifying from V.P. consideration.

Insurmountable?
Not as of now.

"Clinton wins NM but Richardson, a SuperDelegate, endorses Obama

Clinton wins MA, but Kerrey and Kennedy, SuperDelegates, endorse Obama

how is that not screwing over the Clinton voters of those respective states?"

Are you honestly comparing how residents of MA and NM will feel if their state superdelegates vote for Obama when he has won the majority or pledged delegates and the popular vote (thus ending up with the same result that would occur if the superdelegates did not vote or voted with their states), with how African-Americans will feel if the superdelegates vote for Clinton even though Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates and the popular vote? You seriously cannot see the distinction between the two? Because if not, you strike me as profoundly obtuse. And if so, you strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Which is it?

UA

In agreement that the window of opp. for the unity ticket has closed.

With the Wright issue and Obama's "typical" amendment to it, Obama might still win the nomination but not the presidency at this point.

Further, with that baggage, if somehow Clinton gets the nomination, she can't take him as VP now.

The D's screwed ourselves by falling into the trap of the MSM and not rigorously vetting Obama before it was too late.

Insurmountable?
Not as of now.

For all intents and purposes. Describe a plausible path by which Clinton gains over 800,000 votes on Obama in the remaining 10 contests.

As I noted above, winning big in Indiana isn't plausible, and winning at all there is a stretch, so please don't include that.

Please, if it's so surmountable, describe a situation in which we see it happen. Joe's situation is entirely implausible; even he puts the odds at incredibly slim, and that was with a gross misunderstanding of Indy's demographics leaning heavily to Obama.

Indy strikes me about as likely to go heavy Clinton as Wyoming was. It was only in Clinton-fantasy land that her TX/OH wins were going to propel her to victory there. It was demographics, not momentum, that propelled Obama to big wins on Feb 5th in the midwest, and throughout the rest of Feb. Similarly, it was demographics that lead to Clinton's big win in OH and large leads in PA. And demographics that lead to Obama's wins in WY and MS. And demographics that will ultimately lead to big wins in NC and IN

Joe,
I never said the quotient of "screwed-overness" was equal.

What I meant (and maybe I put it badly) is if you're gonna adhere to rules, adhere to them across the board, not only when it suits your candidate.

Ezra, it's no doubt a good thing that you're not a sports journalist.

Given this sort of logic, you'd have probably insisted that the NFL heierarchy call this year's Super Bowl at the two-minute warning in the second half, with the Patriots up by four and the Giants facing third-and-long from deep within their own territory.

ugh, Michael

to me "insurmountable" means absolutely no chance...I will certainly concede "improbable" or even "very unlikely" at this point, but "insurmountable" implies a clairvoyance (sp?) I'm not comfortable claiming; and "very unlikely" is not enough to call an election.

This notion of "vetting" in the primary is bullshit. The only way vetting could be successful is if it occurs behind closed doors before a campaign sees the light of day. For instance the DNC does opposition research on prospective candidates and then convinces them not to run.

Once the campaigns begin, vetting only serves to put a Democratic imprimatur on negative attacks the GOP will end up launching anyway. Dealing with the critiques in the primary isn't likely to provide any better practice for the general election. The candidates will sink or swim then.

If you criticize Obama on the grounds that he hasn't been vetted then you should also be calling him a terrible candidate for failing to savage Clinton. She has barely even begun to see the full measure of nastiness that would be lobbed in her direction come the fall.

Donald,

your analogy only makes sense if Clinton is the equivalent of one big play away from winning.

She's not.

She's the equivalent of 10 implausibly big plays in a row

A better analogy would be here down, say, 19 with 2 minutes to go, and needing a hail mary, a 2-point conversion, a successful onside-kick, another hail mary, another 2 point conversion, another successful onside kick, a long play followed by a field goal, winning the toss in OT, and then driving the field and kicking the winning FG.

Basically, the analogy only works if the Dem race for the pop vote and pledged delegate count is close, and could easily go either way. That is obviously not the case here

You're just restating the absurd spin that the race is neck-and-neck, when the whole post is about debunking that myth. Engage the argument by actually demonstrating some way in which Obama's popular vote lead and/or pledged delegate lead are somehow easily within reach or even plausibly within reach, don't just restate the debunked myth in analogy form. That's begging the question.

Also, twice now, I've included 3 links to citations for the Clintons pushing the Wright smear, but the blog keeps swallowing, waiting for Ezra's approval, prob b/c it thinks its spam.

But here's one

to me "insurmountable" means absolutely no chance...I will certainly concede "improbable" or even "very unlikely" at this point, but "insurmountable" implies a clairvoyance (sp?) I'm not comfortable claiming; and "very unlikely" is not enough to call an election.

Her winning the nomination, at this point, would require Obama losing 10 straight contests by margins only achieved, thus far, in the uncontested OK and AR (Clinton's homestate). Out of 41 contests. Consider that.

Further, I would be happy to let this play out if the Clinton campaign was willing to campaign in such a manner that isn't guaranteed to both damage its own chances at winning the general but also is explicitly designed to hurt Obama--the Dem's likely nominee--chances in the general

You're conceding "very unlikely"...but the converse of that is that Obama is "very likely", which means what you're suggesting is that the super-delegates should indulge Clinton on her campaign to damage the electability of the "very likely" Dem nominee simply because if she is successful enough at it, she might be able to take the nomination from him.

As such, I think its entirely appropriate for anyone who cares about the Dems' chances in Nov to call for an end to this race now, before more damage is done to the "very likely" Dem nominee.

Bill Richardon agrees

Also, as per my last post, here's another link to Clinton's campaign pushing the Wright smear

Damn, forgot the Bill Richardson link

Here it is:

It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the Fall.

On the ground here in Philly's suburbs, the local GOP machine is canvassing everyone to change their registrations to vote for Clinton. This area is getting fed up with the machine [we've been voting bluer and bluer] so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Either way, I'm kinda excited about voting in a primary that matters.

Clinton does not have to lead in the popular vote or the pledged delegate count to get the nomination. She only has to cut into those leads to a point where they would not be considered significant. Basically get within the margin of error, which considering the corrupt nature of the process is not unfeasible. A plegded delgate count has no democratic legitmacy because it is not a reflection of the popular vote as we learned in Texas. Obama's lead is primarily a result of undemcratic caucuses and therefore if he enjoys an insignificant pledged delegate lead he will not be able to make the argument that it would be undemocratic to go with Hillary. If it is close at all then it will become apparent Obama orhestrated the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan to ensure his lead. It is totally within the rules for the superdelegates to pick who they feel is the strongest candidate. Clinton voters are just as likely, if not more likely to defect to McCain if Obama wins the nomination without revotes in Florida and Michigan, and with the Obama campaign's and their lackeys in the press attempt to delegitmize the independence of the superdelegates. Obama needs to allow revotes in Michigan and Florida and come out and say that the decision of the superdelegates must be respected and is legitimate or he will have stolen the nomination. Let's face it, we might as well all get ready for President McCain.

1) It is possible, but by no means certain, that she would rather McCain win than another Democrat.

2) Since it has become clear that she could not reasonably hope to win, there has not been a moment to create a media narrative for her to step down. She couldn't do it if she wanted to.

3) The Jeremiah Wright pseudo-scandal makes it utterly impossible for the party superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate vote. If it looks like the first black man to seriously have a shot at the presidency won the election and got shot down by the establishment, that was already crippling. Now that it would look like they would be shooting him down BECAUSE he was "too black"-- well, it would be manifest party suicide, up and down the ticket, with shock-waves reverberating for years to come.

Ezra,

In your linebacker/QB analogy, you know, the QB could always just walk off the field if he's that confident that he's already won. Obama could simply refuse to seriously compete in all of the rest of the contests. If it's as hopeless for Clinton as you say, then why doesn't he just fully turn his attention to John McCain?

The reason: he knows that not enough rank-and-file Democrats perceive him as the winner of the primary in order to move on. That's your answer for why the primary continues. "Winning" has never been a mathematical equation. It involves a critical (necessary) element of theater as well.

I keep trying to figure out Clinton's path to the nomination. But I can't.

The real kicker is this:

"Figure out a scenario in which Obama can make a graceful concession speech."

Hillary can bow out gracefully tomorrow. Obama can't.

The analogy is the last round of title fight where one fighter is three rounds up on the scorecards. It's a knockout or nothing.

The equivalent to a knockout won't be delivered by voters between now and the convention -- it'll have to be something outside the voting process that ends Obama's political career.

It's Good Friday; let's guilt Clinton into quitting!

Michael,

Consider, just for the sake of argument, that the Obama campaign somehow fails to stem the bleeding of the last week or so.

Suppose the now-suddenly-wobbly campaign wheels come off the Obama bandwagon due to prevailing political circumstances, and the man's poll numbers drop significantly, leaving Clinton to somehow run the primary table through Puerto Rico in June.

Then, also consider the factors the superdelegates themselves will take into consideration in August, should Sen. Obama not reach the 2,025-delegate nomination threshold without them, his lead in the overall popular vote count was reduced significantly in the final six weeks of the primary campaign, and contemporary polling places him well behind Sen. Clinton in public opinion at approximately 40% or a little less, indicating that Democratic voters developed a strong sense of buyers' remorse.

How do you think the superdelegates will break at the convention? Do you seriously believe that they'll proceed to nominate Obama when all indications point to his general election candidacy being a non-starter?

The primary season needs to play itself out. Period. It's part-and-parcel of the overall vetting process.

And quite frankly, I'm not willing to coronate my party's nominee prematurely in mid-March, only to see his campaign unable to close the deal with voters, as happened in 2004. This time, the entire nominating process truly needs to run its course.

If Obama survives that process to become our eventual nominee, he'll truly be the better candidate for it, and nobody will ever again claim that he's not been battle-tested.

All Clinton has to do to be the nominee is to win most of the coming primaries, including some on Obama's turf.

Win PA, and then pull out a surprise in NC to go with IN a week later, and the picture is going to look a helluva lot different than it does now.

All Obama has to do to be the nominee is hold his favorable turf.

Obama's increasing vulnerability is why his supporters are making such a clamor to get Clinton to pull out now. They understand that things aren't going well for them, and that future elections are not their friend.

-----

"The equivalent to a knockout won't be delivered by voters between now and the convention"

Spoken like a true Obama supporter. Fuck those pesky Democratic voters. We don't care what they think.

Of course, you're wrong. If Obama pooches the voting going forward, which is looking increasingly likely given that Team Obama is showing they can't handle taking a punch, he's going to lose this nomination race at the hands of the Democratic electorate at the ballot box.

The Party has no wish to repeat the Dukakis experience of going into the fall with a candidate who has a glass jaw.

fh seems to think that a 71 year old Republican candidate selling an unpopular war during a probable recession is a sure bet because the Democratic candidate
has a controversial ex-clergyman. Nice of you to spare us the time you don't devote to avid viewing of Fox News, fh.

pseudo - What are the chances that something outside the voting process ends Obama's campaign? I would post the number at 10/1 if I was giving odds but I assume the Clinton team thinks it is closer to 3/1. Millions of people have made many wagers with those odds even when the payoff wasn't the presidency.

This is total BS. Neither candidate has enough delegates to win. That means brokered convention (even if it doesn't actually happen at the convention the function is the same).

Maybe you think Obama wins in such a scenario. Good for you. You've made a prediction. What you haven't done is describe something that has already happened. Until somebody hits the magic number, nobody wins.

When Obama gets trounced in PA by double digits then loses North Carolina, Indiana, and West Virginia by thirty points it will become increasingly obvious that Obama is going down and the only remaining question will be whether the whole country goes down with him.

All loyal Democrats better hope that Hillary still has a chance, because if she has no chance, our party has no chance. Obama will not be the next president, you can count on that. McCain will put Sarah Palin on his ticket and in doing so snatch much of the female vote from Obama. White Midwestern voters will resent being accused of racism if they don't vote Obama, and will flip to McCain.

Bottom line: if Obama is the nominee, we lose by 100 electoral votes. Plain and simple.

Clarification: Obama will lose West Virginia by thirty points. North Carolina he will lose narrowly. Indiana, double digits are possible.

It was demographics, not momentum, that propelled Obama to big wins on Feb 5th in the midwest, and throughout the rest of Feb.

Michael: It was the caucus format, not demographics, that propelled Obama to "big wins" outside the south. Washington State is illustrative. Obama won the caucuses there in a big way. But the (non-binding) Democratic primary there, held a couple of weeks later, saw Clinton battle him to a few percentage points.

Obama has the vote suppressing caucus format to thank for his currently lofty position.

At this point, considering the excitement of the primary, any remaining state will feel cheated if one of the candidates backs out now. It will be seen as backing out and not conceding since it is implausible that either can reach the 2025. This has to play out.
Concerning McCain and the GOP, they are in a bind until a nominee is announced and while they can take pot shots those are being drowned in the the story of the big race. The Dems are fine as long as they keep the infighting at the present level and rein in the rapid supporters on either side.

Look, do you really want to prematurely end this and tell PA voters thanks but no thanks, like Obama is doing with MI and FL? How many states do we want to piss off before the general election?

This is inane. As inane as the idea that the person that wins the Dem primary in Ohio can only win it in GE. Kerry and Gore both won the Ohio primary.

McCain is running unoposed in PA. According to the logic, he can't possibly win there in November because the PA voters will be upset they didn't count.

Come on. You can all wish Clinton has a shot, but she doesn't. The system doesn't work that way. Big victories in big states net you maybe 7-10 delegates. Obama has 150+ delegate lead. Clinton would need 30-40 Ohios to make up the difference.

Popular vote is not a criteria unless you want to tell everyone in a caucus state they have no input into picking the candidate now.

It has been over since the Potomac primary. Clinton needed Wisconsin to even keep things alive for 3/4. She lost and that ended it.

he thinks he'll win her voters, but she won't win his. Is that because he'd withhold endorsement from her?

No, it's because many-- not all by any means, but a good number-- of his voters either aren't dependably Democratic voters yet (youth), have historically been the most dependable Dems but are thoroughly pissed by the Clinton campaign's dismissiveness (AAs), or are damned sick of being mocked in exactly the same terms that GOPers have been using for years now (upscale/educated whites, who "don't need a President," according to Bill). Those are a lot of bridges burned, and as pissy as some of HRC's demographic groups may be, there's no evidence that the Obama campaign has been abusing them in any way, or dismissed their primary votes as irrelevant, as has clearly been the case in reverse.

Or to put it another way, this is going to come down to a) which groups have legitimate complaints about how they've been treated by the campaign they did not support, and b) how the party plans to grow without getting younger people to vote and upscale people to work for them. Should be interesting.

Donald from Hawaii: "This time, the entire nominating process truly needs to run its course. If Obama survives that process to become our eventual nominee, he'll truly be the better candidate for it, and nobody will ever again claim that he's not been battle-tested."

Wrong. In fact, Obama will probably emerge from a protracted nomination fight unelectable. So will Clinton. I mean Jesus christ it's the end of March already, most of the states have voted, the primary has been the longest and the most widely covered race in the history of American politics. With each passing day the general election draws closer and John McCain increases his lead over Obama and Clinton while the democratic party fractures and tears itself apart. This is a disaster happening in slow motion.

Do you understand that the most important fight here is not Obama vs. Clinton? It is the democratic presidential candidate vs. McCain. We are going to lose that battle if this intra-party food fight goes on much longer. What a Pyrrhic victory it will be for whoever wins the primary but goes on to lose the general.

As of right now I am supporting a Clinton/Obama unity ticket. The next best thing is for Clinton to drop out since Obama is the frontrunner.

LOL Patrick and James P

Patrick, if it was "ended" as you say, this post thread wouldn't exist.

JP,
say what you want, but I'll put "goddamn America" up against an unpopular war, economic woes, etc. in terms of albatrosses (albatri?)

This attempt to get Clinton to quit now feels desperate and smells of panic. Why the rush, fellas?

In your linebacker/QB analogy, you know, the QB could always just walk off the field if he's that confident that he's already won. Obama could simply refuse to seriously compete in all of the rest of the contests. If it's as hopeless for Clinton as you say, then why doesn't he just fully turn his attention to John McCain?

This has to play out...The Dems are fine as long as they keep the infighting at the present level and rein in the rapid supporters on either side.

As for the infighting: no, if it continues at the present level McCain will continue to benefit. National polls are already showing him getting a bounce from it against both Obama and Clinton. It needs to be toned down otherwise this on-going primary will not only waste money that should be better spent against McCain, but it'll increase the cost of rebuilding the winner's image later.

Jeebus,

I aggree that both candidates are weak but I would go further and say that their weaknesses explain why we haven't yet seen a nominee. Obama is vunerable because of Rev. Wright and little national experience. HRC is vunerable when it comes to her unfavorable numbers and her experience. Recent reports indicate that she may have been padding her resume. I will say this however that she seems to be more electable, in that she has support from working class whites. Obama still has a problem attracting those voters. I don't think this problem will go away.

Consider, just for the sake of argument, that the Obama campaign somehow fails to stem the bleeding of the last week or so.

Suppose the now-suddenly-wobbly campaign wheels come off the Obama bandwagon due to prevailing political circumstances, and the man's poll numbers drop significantly, leaving Clinton to somehow run the primary table through Puerto Rico in June.

Well, the bleeding is stemmed but I will play along.

Clinton could suspend her campaign and still be there at the convention if something terrible happened to Obama. Right now, your scenario would probably lead to Gore getting the nod.

She can run all the primaries she wants. The system does not give you more than 5-20 delegates per win (otherwise Obama would have been long gone at the end of Feb.). With his 150+ delegate lead, she would have to win many more states than are even left. A lot of people keep saying it is close at 150, but that is 20 Ohios!

Clinton needed to win Texas and Ohio by over 63% EACH. She did that in neither. Plus, her campaign didn't even know about the Texas caucus when they started out on their 3/4 firewall strategy. So, she need to take 50 delegates out of 3/4, instead she lost net delegates.

Game over. Instead of bowing out gracefully, she went nuclear.

Mark Penn's company works for Clinton and McCain. One has to wonder, now that her strategy is helping out Penn's other client so nicely.

I will say this however that she seems to be more electable, in that she has support from working class whites. Obama still has a problem attracting those voters. I don't think this problem will go away.

jimfromportland

you are not alone.
nerve shattering.
:-(

The will of the Democrats should not be overturned!* Obama must be the nominee!

*Unless those people live in Michigan or Florida in which case they don't count. Or if those people caucused for Edwards in Iowa in which case we'll take those votes.

Woe are the put upon rich, white people. I feel for you, I really do. I was stunned that Obama did not mention all of your legitimate grievances in his speech. How are we to come together as a people when many of us are totatlly ignorant of how difficult your plight really is. Us brown and poor people really should empathize with your struggle against the declining dollar which took a toll during your two week vacation in Tuscany, the rising cost of wheat which is wreaking havoc at your favorite artisanal bakery, the vast quantities of mediocre Merlot you have to suffer through silently, the difficulty in hiring an illegal housekeeper and nanny, not to mention the steep increase in tuition at Swarthmore and Amherst which means at you have to suffer through at least one more year driving that horrible 545i before you can upgrade.

Only Obama can unite us all.

I wonder what Clinton supporters who are currently arguing that the superdelegates should be able to decide thing think of Nancy Pelosi's contention that the superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegates. I mean, let's just say that the supers do as she says. Will all of you accept the decision? Or will you say that the supers, too, don't count? Just asking.

Corrected version of the above:
I wonder what Clinton supporters who are currently arguing that the superdelegates should be able to decide this thing think of Nancy Pelosi's contention that the superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegates. I mean, let's just say that the supers do as she says. Will all of you accept the decision? Or will you say that the supers, too, don't count? Just asking.

I am not sure why people are still arguing over this, clearly Obama has already won this thing.

The Obama campaign and the DNC need to start focusing on a way to deal with the future race cards that will surely be thrown out from the GOP and their friends in the media on ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, and Time b/c HE WILL be the nominee. Period. Clinton could have won if she would have competed in the caucus states early but she didn't. Oh well. Too Bad. It's over.

Obama needs to:
- Select someone like Webb as his VP to hit McCain on foreign policy every chance he gets.
- get white governors, mayors, senators, etc.. to make TV and radio ads for him in the GE
- Get the Clintons to campaign for him and with him in white states like PA, OH, FL, and NH.
- Continue to reach out to the hispanic communities in NM, CO, and NV ( with clintons and hispanic surrogates) through radio, mailers, and spanish TV.
- use his surrogates like members of congress, mayors, etc... to continue to energize the black community and get a record turnout.
- Continue to reach out to white working class voters as often as possible witht the help of popular white politicians in OH, PA, FL, ect...

- Make stro ng case against McCain on jobs and healthcare... Obama needs better commercials that really speak to people's problems and that reach working class people.
- Select Jim Webb as his VP and send him around the country to give speechs, make commercials in VA, and hit McCain on Foreign Policy.

We need to get t his show on the road before McCain's favorables get too high to knock down. Where is the DNC???

Patrick, if it was "ended" as you say, this post thread wouldn't exist.

The thread is about how it is over but the Clintonites can't do math and the MSM can (race=ratings). What thread are you posting on? LOL

I am posting on how I have already done the math. LOL

Patrick,
I guess it depends on what your meaning of "over" is.

Spoken like a true Obama supporter. Fuck those pesky Democratic voters. We don't care what they think.

Since your descent into abject hackery, Petey, your reading capacity has diminished a great deal. But thanks for shoving words in my mouth, you fucking prick.

The analogy I used was a prize fight. Primaries and caucuses score points; they don't deliver knockout blows. Hillary can't win on points. She needs to put Obama on the deck. That's an even higher threshold than in a general election, where the loser, more often than not, has a career to return to.

For Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, Obama's political career will have to end between now and the summer. As 'vegas line' says, it's a wager that might pay off (at least in the short term) but I'd like to know if Crazy Petey is happy with a primary process that ends Obama's career.

So I'll say it again: what's a plausible scenario in which Obama can bow out gracefully? No bullshit, please.

Its late, I'm tired, and I'm coming to this, clearly, in the middle of a discussion where I don't feel like arguing a lot. However:

- there's really nothing in the Vandehei/Allen piece that wasn't said weeks ago. And then she won Texas and Ohio.

- one reason this is getting more urgency is because it's looking as though Obama will lose Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina, and probably Indiana, not to mention Kentukcy. For someone so clearly winning, that's a lot of potential lsing.

- Ezra made his determination weeks ago, and he's really not changed his view on it. And I think that's certainly valid, for him; however, the idea that's he's adding something new with this post is also not the case. He's said this before, more tha once.

- Finally, it's not over. It wasn't over the last 10 or 12 times at least that writers like Vandehei and Allen insisted that it was, it's not going to be over for at least 4 more weeks and we see how PA vtes, and even then... it's probably not over. Wishing, insisting, kvelling... will not make it so. If you want to make arguments about why Clinton shouldn't be the Democratic nominee, make them, as a supporter, I'm happy to hear and debate them. But this insistence that "it's over" has been around for months, and it's poor arguing, if nothing else. Can we at least try a new tack?

Look I was a very strong Clinton supporter untill I realized last January that McCain was going to be the Republican candidate. So I asked myself, how does HRC beat McCain? On character? Don't think so. As a champion of public integrity and clean government? Well, maybe not. As a clear and consistent opponent of the Bush national security policy, especially the Iraq debacle? Well... How about superior range and depth of experience? Would that were so! This is going to be a very big election, probably the biggest since 1980. At least one hopes so. Ultimately it’s going to fought on the issues and which side offers the most compelling vision for the future. Obama, IMHO , does offer the clearest and most appealing alternative to the McCain-Bush-Lieberman concept of U.S. foreign policy, and with Clinton a far more attractive and effective set of social and economic policies. But unlike Clinton who, regrettably seems only to inspire dislike and distrust in many people, Obama may yet be able to be the first Democratic candidate since John F. Kennedy to give this country the healing and inspirational leadership that it sorely needs. As for the experience argument, well a good two word rebuttal to that is Dick Cheney. And while Obama has less experience than McCain he does enjoy one small advantage; he knows what he is talking about.
So Clinton Supporters, please tell me, how does she run against McCain? Assuming, of course, that she wins the nomination without irrevocably splitting the party. Forget about poll numbers and demographics—at this time in 1980 Jimmy Carter was leading Reagan by close to 20 points in the polls—what’s the substantive and emotional argument for her election? And how does she heal the wounds that she and her campaign have inflicted on the Party. Let there be no mistake about this. Stating or implying that the presumptive Republican nominee is better prepared to be commander-in-chief than a leading Democratic contender is simply unforgivable. And remember I WAS A CLINTON SUPPORTER. If she’s disillusioned somebody like me, well I suspect she’ll have a some problems putting the party back together.

Let me do some math for all the Obama idiots. If you ain't got 2025, you are tied with everyone else who ain't got it. You either are the nominee or you are not. Obama fits into the second category. This bullshit about the pledge delegate lead don't mean crap. This ridiculous bullshit about the superdelegates having to vote for anyone is a plot by Obama to steal the nomination. If he continues it then the polls that say 1 in 4 Hillary supporters will vote for McCain in the fall will only get worse. Obama will not extort the nomination out of this party and the more he tries the tougher it will be for him to close. The race is not over till someone has 2025, and if you don't get it any complaining that you were robbed is an illegitimate power grab. If you can't get the voters to give you this nomination with all that money, that lead, and all those endorsements, then don't expect the superdelegates to do it for you.

The truth is, Weboy is right: it's not over. Not technically. But it is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely that Hillary will get the nod, and surely there's nothing wrong with saying so, just as there's nothing wrong with saying that Barack's not likely to win PA. Now, if the Hillary partisans remain confident that their favorite will prevail, I have good news! They can make a fortune by heading over to Intrade right now and placing a bet. BO's currently at 77.9 and HRC's at 21.6, so you stand to do incredibly well. Do report back to us on how much you win.

JT,

I quite agree that superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. So suppose they want to vote for the leader in pledged delegates. It's their prerogative, correct? And will you support their choice if they do that? Will you support their choice if come out in favor of Obama prior to Pennsylvania? Will you support their choice if they do anything other than what you want them to?

JT, I'd also add... Barack Obama doesn't have the 2,025. He doesn't have it in committed delegates, and he'll only have it in superdelegates the way Hillary Clinton will - arguing that he, more than she, should be the nominee. That's where we are, and it's where we've been. It is unlikely to change between now and at least June. Again that would mean... it's not over.

Alex, I think the point is that... it's very lcose. There's an argument - even a numbers based argument - to be made on both sides. I think things like the "oddsmakers" polls are entertaining... but hardly the way to have a political argument. If Clinton's route to the nomination looks harder than Obama's - and I'd probably say it does, if pressed - it's stll a path, and we've still got primaries to run and arguments to play out. Let's at least wait and see. But these " it's (many verys) unlikely" type things... not very (very very) meaningful. It's a tough, close race. There's a case on both sides... and we'll have to wait and see.

Lord... I'm even arguing with people I agree with. Sorry, JT. :)

Now I should probably go to bed.

Alex-
If they come out in favor of Obama because they believe he is the most electable and best candidate, I would have no problem with that. Clearly however if people felt that way they would have already come out in favor of a candidate, so that isn't really possible. Both Hillary and Barack have over 200 superdelegates already. No one is saying they should have to change. Those superdelegates who haven't decided yet have basically declared that they would rather not decide the nomination and I respect that. They would like to see the voters have their say first. But if the voters can't decide, at that point those superdelegates should make an assessment as to who they feel would be the best candidate and vote for that person. It would be one thing for the supers to cut the process short and decide before everyone gets a chance to vote. It would be totally different if once everyone has had a chance to have a say and no one has the nomination, for them to step in and decide. If the voters can't decide the supers must, and at that point no one should be rewarded for what would have to amount to an insignificant numerical advantage. What should matter is the judgment of the superdelegates about what is best for the party. That is in fact the way the general election will work per the design of the framers. If no one wins a majority of the electoral college than the House decides who will be President. They are not obligted to vote for the leader in electoral votes and nor should they be. The same principle should apply here. The supers are free to decide anytime they want, but for them to cut the process off before everyone could get a say would be totally different from them making a decision once a process in which everyone has had a say winds up inconclusive. In our democracy you win not by leading, but by getting a majority. When that isn't possible through the popular vote our framers had the wisdom to leave that process to the people's representatives to resolve what would obviously be a difficult and tense situation. To argue against that as Obama an his supporters have is a dangerous power grab that disrespects the very basis of our system of representative democracy and attempts to replace with the threat of mob rule. It will be a sad day indeed if the Democratic Party gives in to such people and their illegtimate demands.

"- there's really nothing in the Vandehei/Allen piece that wasn't said weeks ago. And then she won Texas and Ohio."

Nope. Looking back, what were the pundits saying after Obama had rattled off 11 in a row? They were taking a clear -eyed view of the delegate count and said that for HRC to have any hope of getting back in this thing they had to win both Ohio and Texas BY 15 POINTS.

As we know, this didn't happen. But the Clinton's were successful in changing the narrative to them just winning one of those states, by any margin, and she'd stay in. And the press dutifully nodded sagely and said, "on to Pennsylvania" conveniently forgetting that Obama was gonna pad his totals in WY and MS. Not to mention he picked up more delegates out of Iowa when that state finally settled up.

To break Obama's cycle of wins they had to go negative against him, full speed ahead, damn the torpedos. Throw the kitchen sink and when that is only marginally effective, play the most disgusting of all cards: the race card.

They don't give a shit about the Dem chances of beating McCain. In fact, it's in their best interests to divide the party so badly that Obama loses in the general, so they can say 'told ya so' and then run again in 4 years.

The Clintons have shown they are LOSERS. Tell me, how is that Obama has been able to kick their ass when HRC has both her and her ex-President hubby both going after this political *neophyte*? This is unprecidented in politics...an ex pres propping up his wife, and they are still behind. They had every advantage going for them, and they blew it, and Obama has won his votes fair and square.

The Clintons are tawdry, despicable, race-baiting egomaniacs. My most fervent hope at this point is that they both go away and never come back. And should they win by coup, this is one voter that will never favor that effort with my vote.

jdw-
could those intials stand for jerimiah "damn america" wright? Way to spew ignorant hatred.

"So I'll say it again: what's a plausible scenario in which Obama can bow out gracefully?"

Clinton is going to have to win in an "Obama state" somewhere down the line while holding her states, which make up the bulk of the rest of the calendar.

At that point, Obama won't be the nominee, and he can bow out any fucking way he pleases, gracefully or screaming. But coming in a close second is no shame for a sane politician.

"I'd like to know if Crazy Petey is happy with a primary process that ends Obama's career."

I've got nothing against Obama. I'd love to see things work out where he's number two on the ticket this year. If things work out that way, when he runs for the top job down the line, he'll have figured out by then that he should run by defending Democratic policy, not attacking Democratic policy.

Obama's going down; that is now obvious to all but the Obama-bots, who long ago decided they didn't need their brains anyway.

The only thing remaining to be seen is whether he takes the party down with him. This isn't over because nobody has reached the magic number. If the party ultimately decides to follow Obama down the path of self destruction then the Obama-bots can say "it's over" without looking like fools and we can start wondering who the hell to run in 2012.

Where is this "Obama will lose North Carolina" business coming from? There's one recent poll that shows it close. The election is still a month and a half away, and Obama has very strong structural advantages in terms of the Black vote (which, notably, never shows up as strongly in the pre-election polls as it does in the exit polls - Obama tends to show as getting 75% of the Black vote in polls, but then wins 85-90% on election day.)

I'll go so far as to agree that if Obama loses North Carolina, he'll be in some considerable trouble. I just don't see any good reason to think that he will lose it.

Also, it seems as though there's a lot of projection going on here - it's obvious that Obama is going down to everyone except his fanatical supporters? This whole article is pointing to an article by Jim VandenHei and Mike Allen, who are not notable as being fanatical Obama supporters. Other figures who mostly agree, and aren't Obama supporters, include Josh Marshall, Marc Ambinder, Chuck Todd, Ben Smith, and Marc Halperin. Obama just got Richardson's endorsement.

It's obviously still somewhat too early to tell if the Wright story is going to drag on any longer, but the idea that Obama is in the midst of a total meltdown is rather absurd, and the idea that everyone realizes he is going to lose except fanatical supporters is really much more a description of Clinton's chances than vice versa.

Can anyone point to any major political or media figure who is not a Clinton supporter who is currently arguing that a Clinton win is at all plausible, much less that she's in the driver's seat?

In conclusion: Trollery is rampant here.

jdw,
"The Clintons..."
LOL

I'll take that as a 'no' then, Petey?

coming in a close second is no shame for a sane politician.

Though signing up to accept Peteymath, in which a) the popular vote is the only metric that matters; b) Michigan counts in that total; c) caucus states without reported popular totals don't count, would not be a sign of sanity.

Where is this "Obama will lose North Carolina" business coming from? There's one recent poll that shows it close.

Indeed. My presumption is that it's an outlier, and that once Obama shows up in the Triangle, Charlotte and the west of the state, you're going to see some real numbers. Of course, there's another month of the Clinton 'end Obama's career' strategy to endure first.

Can anyone point to any major political or media figure who is not a Clinton supporter who is currently arguing that a Clinton win is at all plausible, much less that she's in the driver's seat?

In conclusion: Trollery is rampant here.

They don't care. They, and Clinton are so wrapped up in "winning" that they've lost sight of what's right.

So she's embarked on this reprehensible path and they're all cheering her on. In turn she's cheering them on in their delusion.

I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the Terry McAuliffe's and the Mark Penns and the big dollar fat cat donors. I'm sick of being told that they know what's best for us all and that I should just cowboy up and accept their lofty judgement.

Though why the hell I should accept the wisdom of the crew who lost the elections in 94, 98, 2000, 2002, and 2004 while presiding over the biggest build up of the right wing apparatus is beyond me.

A pox on the whole crew.

Indeed. My presumption is that it's an outlier, and that once Obama shows up in the Triangle, Charlotte and the west of the state, you're going to see some real numbers. Of course, there's another month of the Clinton 'end Obama's career' strategy to endure first.

agreed.

And in what freaking universe is that strategy considered even border line moral?

John--can't speak for others but when I say Obama's going down, I mean his candidacy in general. He's not going to be president. That is what is obvious. Whether he loses to Clinton or McCain is a different story. He's obviously crashing and burning, which is why his supporters are basically arguing that it doesn't matter because it's too late for Clinton to win anyway.

And they may end up being right in the sense that Obama's flame-out is coming too late for the entire party to avoid going down with him. But that doesn't make his flameout any less real.

Obama-bots: your man will never be president. Get over it. Now do you mind if we nominate someone who can win?

Ib Obama loses now, it will have been by his own doing; he knew the Rev. Wright stuff would be trouble a long time ago, but proceeded anyway.

Blaming Clinton is low.

Obama-bots: your man will never be president. Get over it. Now do you mind if we nominate someone who can win?

Keep whistling past the graveyard.

She's DOA. Learn to live with it.

Like I said, anon, I'm not making any predictions that Hillary is going to win. Did you read what I said? IT MAY WELL BE TOO LATE.

But if it IS too late that's only because of people like you who refuse to face the truth and ditch the now radioactive frontrunner.

hot air rises, expands and eventually cools and sinks

Will Goolsbee follow Granny Dunham overboard?

"When the still sea conspires an armor
And her sullen and aborted
Currents breed tiny monsters,
True sailing is dead

Awkward instant
And the first animal is jettisoned,
Legs furiously pumping
Their stiff green gallop,
And heads bob up"

Now Bill Clinton is questioning Obamas patriotism, claiming there are TWO candidates (Hillary and McCain) that love America and would put Americas interests first.

So I guess we've gone from questioning Obamas race to questioning his patriotism.

And I thought this was the kind of thing just those bad, bad Republicans do.....

What a hell of a mess in the year when the White House is just about as winnable as ever in my life, and it comes down to the Superdelegates, do you want to alienate more the A.A.’s and rich whites and all the students or the blue haired ladies and some blue collars. Of course the supers don't like this rock and hard place kind of situation but they sure as anything better go with the guy who brings along the A.A.s and students. Some Billary's supporters may go mccain or stay home but it’ll be much worse if it was the other way around believe me. Also the contrast between Barack and McOld is so much clearer and there will be plenty of time to make it clearer especially since the rotten world built by fossils from the guys generation and especially his rotten party is falling down around everybody’s sore ears these days. Who but the winger kooks will want McOld come Nov anyway since the buzzards will be already flying round his AZ carcass already. The good news here is this means there's still time to save this thing and the news domesticaly and around the world is definitely going that way all you have to do is read the news to see the Reptiles are finished this year like Nixon or hoover and any halfway good democrat can do it this year as long as the fighting stops in the party and it starts getting aimed at road kill McCain whose already ripe for buzzards with the Iraq war not a done deal for him by a long shot even when he goes visiting and lies about it all day long with his big support from Bush.

thanks, weboy!
well put

http://nycweboy.typepad.com/my_weblog/

In Hillarys' defense, if you had Democratic primaries/caucuses like the Republicans do, Winner take all, just like the general election, Clinton would have 1049 and Obama 904 in pledged delegates, not including Florida and Michigan.

Unfortunately the DNC has created a myriad of rules to satisfy every interest group leading to a clear debacle come August.

But by general election rules, Hillary would be beating Obama by 150 or so, under DNC rules, Obama is beating Hillary by 150 or so.

Look, I want this to be over as much as anyone, and I'm not thrilled about pandering, but being so close to a PA primary which is relevant for the first time in a good long while it seems kind of foolish to ask Clinton to bow out now. Granted, I don't think she can win, but I'd rather PA voters get their warm fuzzies about participating in the democratic primary than feel that there were some kind of political shenanigans that resolves the issue now.

Ideally I would like Clinton to use the time between now an the PA primary to turn her campaign away from the crazy attacks. Return to building up Obama as a worthy candidate, even if she keeps on hammering her positives. Switch to a harder focus on bringing up John McCain's negatives. In short, build up the party so that when she inevitably has to bow out Obama is in a better position to win.

Shorter Clinton fans:

We don't care that every day our candidate is exposed as a serial liar, with no significant experience, as someone who was a NAFTA cheerleader and then smeared others about it, someone who had nothing to do with FMLA and tried to steal the credit for it, who did not land in Bosnia under sniper fire, but got a nice bouquet of flowers and a poem from an 8 year old girl.

You seriously consider Hillary credible? Not to speak of fairytales, but exactly what is Clinton's candidacy based on? Competence? Character? When has she shown either of them? Healthcare was a total botch, and if you want to suggest she has character, you better have a good explanation for the chronic falsehood that afflicts her and has done for her 8 undistinguished years in the Senate.

Done with that? Right, tell us why a candidate who has lost her invincible leads and whose campaign is broke is worth a shot in the general. She can't even manage her own finances, and you want us to take her seriously?

Happy now? Right, run her against McCain, and argue experience and character - whie defending the lies, the race-baiting surrogates and, in general, the whole sordid bungled mess of the campaign. Think you really have a prayer? Riiiiight....

I don't know, jacinth; that sound like "longer Clinton fans" to me

shorter jacinth:
It was fun groping Ellen DeGeneres on her show last week

jacinth, clearly, your mind is made up, and you are, without a doubt, entitled to your opinion. That I disagree, strongly, with the way you characterize these things should probably be a given, and trying to respond is clearly not worth the effort. I know people who could write the reverse answer to you about Obama, in just such harsh terms. I would simply say that this isn't getting us anywhere - something I think, that we should all try to rise above, and insist that the media do, as well. If we want to discuss the differences between the candidates, the reasons we support one, over another, let's have at it. But the "your candidate sucks, and here's why" aproach... not really likely to make a difference. Certainly not to me. I suppose I'd rather hear your passionate case for Obama, than more dismissals of Senator Clinton, though even that, I suspect, would be more about feeling than fact.

and to answer your questions, jacinth:

yes
experience
yes
yes
constantly
yes
because the other democratic candidate is finished
yes
yes
and yes

Weboy, you could just respond to the points I raised. If Clinton gets to the general, you won't be able to use the "Not Obama" argument. Do you have a defense of her against McCain? If not, I suggest you rethink your support for her.

Lmao, it's huilarious to watch Clinton supporters attempting to will the Wright fiasco into being a lot more damaging than it has been.

You guys act like he lost 20 points in the polls and is still spiraling, rather than the reality of the situation: He lost 5-6 points and is already rebounding.

Even if that did knock Clinton out, it would probably mean Clinton wouldn't get the nomination either. After all, it's just as fair to pick someone with no delegates as it is to pick someone with fewer delegates. It's every bit as 'legal' and it's not against the rules either. It's also a hell of a lot more likely than Hillary getting the nomination from that process.

Funny, isn't it, that the Hillary fans just don't handle truth at all well? Is that why they are so comfortable with a candidate who is so addicted to falsehood?

jacinth, those, aren't "points", they're invective. If you want a reasoned, thoughtful debate over the two candidates and their issues, let's. But don't hurl a lot of "she's a liar, she's useless in the Senate" type arguing and call it "points." I have my opinions on why I think Hillary Clinton can beat John McCain. I don't see a need to share them with you , at a point when, clearly, you have little or no interest in hearing them.

Weboy, I realize that it is hard for you to argue that Clinton is a good candidate on the basis of facts. The points I cited are not invective, they are a statement of where Clinton has been clearly shown to be a liar, by people who were there. If you can't deal with facts, then I suggest you recognize that they are facts, act honestly, and don't just throw insults around. In doing so, you simply confirm what rational people have long suspected, namely that Clinton's candidacy is invalid and depends on the gullibility of supporters like yourself. I repeat: show that Cinton did not lie on the specific points I stated. If you can't deal with such a simple challenge, I suggest you grow up, work on your personal issues with truth, and then try politics again.

You know, I really do try to understand the Clinton supporter's point of view. I listen, mull it over, wonder. They seem so convinced, and even kind of angry, so I have to ask myself if I've missed something. They can't possibly be as crazy and disconnected and counterintuitive as they seem. But I read through this comment thread and hear the maniacs ranting about Wright (even though it's patently racist to do so) and ignoring the really unsavory aspects of the Clinton candidacy, I hear Petey (oh Petey!) banging that hollow drum about the will of "registered democrats," I watch Weboy miss points with a kind of methodical regularity, I listen to JT argue, in essence, that the superdelegates can choose whoever they want (as long as it's Clinton), and I can't escape the sense that these people are not, in fact, on very solid ground. Does anyone else feel like this?

Jacinth, there's no point trying to reason with weboy. He or she long since stopped trying to debate issues seriously. Instead, weboy just learns a new word like "invective" and uses it instead of reasoned discussion. Very Clintonesque, really, this use of words to hide the sad realities.

Well, I suspect the Clinton cultists are a sad tribe, who know that Hillary has lost, and are still mourning for their lost candidate. They never ask what might be best for Democrats, or the nation - they just keep on hacking away like mindless zombies. But then, they did support Hillary....

Poor old weboy, it must be difficult to sustain that level of pouting, lip-quivering, intellectual dishonesty for so many hours in the day.... How does the poor child cope?

I've written, hear and elsewhere, extensively on ths issues of the day; I care deeply about them, just as I care deeply about this election. Just as I know that others, with different points of view, and candidates to support, care about theirs. We're not, really, having a carefully reasoned debate here. I'm happy to, by e-mail, or on my blog, with anyone. I'm not interested, as happens here and elsewhere, of engaging in the "let's see who can be more dismissive of the other." I've listened, carefully, to both Clinton and Obama on a variety of issues. I happen to prefer Clinton. You do not. I accept that. You could, as a starting point, do the same.

So, weboy, answer to the facts. Do you deny that Clinton lied on those specific issues? If so, how your evidence. You dismiss it as invective - use the reasn you claim to embrace, and answer like a reasonable person.

Seems to me like Hillary does tell a lot of lies, and that means a bad character or bad judgment. You got a problem with that, weboy?

Anyone notice how weboy weasels out of answering some very straightforward questions? S/he just can't defend Clinton, and so runs away from the issue - in public!

With a name like "weboy" and an extensive life on the web... you'd think the "s/he" question would be answered...

grrrr...

:)

Look, you guys/gals can poke/prod any way you like... I've offered a place to talk, and a way to continue the discussion. I offered it seriously, and in good faith. I don't feel it helpful, or productive, to engage the pile-on happening here. You're welcome to take me up on what I offer. I'm not really unclear on where I stand, or why - and I've answered questions like these, enough to know that this discussion isn't going much of anywhere as it stands. It's easy enough to investigate my POV. We disagree, and I'm not one to do it an angry way, or to try to take another person or that person's candidate apart. Have a great day. For now, I think I'm done.

Please, dear Democrats, do not trust Politico to support your candidate--in the long run. Take their articles with as many pinches of salt as possible.

The Politico seems to have been joined at the hip with Drudge since its inception--and Drudgico is not a friend of Dems or progressives.

They may write glowingly of one Dem in order to take out another Dem, but that fluffing will turn to more seriously threatening powdered anthrax when it comes to protecting the desires of their corporate sponsors.

(Methaphorical anthrax--but actual threat to the body politic)

Jacinth, He's black. She's not. For some of these people, that's all that matters.

They can hide their views behind the pretend game of 'I just don't think white people will vote for him' or 'the wright thing has clearly damaged him beyond repair', but the fact that they keep repeating this long after it's clear that neither are true really tells you that it's something they want to be true.

Jawbone, this isn't some report of new information. Everyone who actually understands our political system knows this is over. There are only three types of people who deny this:

1.) Hillary supporters who keep praying for a miracle.

2.) People who do not understand the Democratic primary system, and who have not paid attention to any reports on what delegates actually will, rather than what they could conceivably, do.

3.) Stone cold racists (and their enablers) who can't wrap their mind around the fact that a black guy is going to be a Presidential nominee.

Shorter weboy:

I will happily throw around abusive terms. I will refuse to face awkward questions about my candidate. I will however graciously agree to debate "reasonably" - so long as it is on my terms, at my place and NOBODY HEARS US.

Well, what a principled, tempting offer that is.

The problem we have is Hillary ran on the 'experienced' platform and more and more evidence shows she has basically NONE.

Obama ran on the coming together, we can do it, when he's never actually done anything. On top of that he's not exactly the post racial candidate everyone was hoping for.

Obamas' togetherness is just as phoney as Hillarys' experience. Remember this is the same guy who says he'll talk to Iran, Castro, etc. but wouldn't even sit down with Fox News for a debate when the left wing told him not to. Is Fox News a worse enemy then Iran?

Soulite,
Its a very convenient argument to just say that everyone who doesn't support Obama is a racist, afterall, we know from Obama how a typical white person thinks.

Typical white people think like his Grandmother, they fear black people walking down the street, they have unjustified animosity toward black people, this is the typical white person.

But don't go back and actually read what Obama wrote in his book about Grandma, because if you point out the story he's telling now, is not the same story he published, we'll then your a typical racist white person.

And don't point out that last week he claimed he'd never heard any of this stuff from Rev Wright only to completely change his tune in his speech were he then admitted he had heard it.

These are thing typical white people do, not people who have a real argument with his words - because you know, those typical white people thought words meant something - but apparently when their Rev Wrights words,,,not so much meaning- we let that go. Because you see Rev Wright screaming tirades against Jews and America are just like Grandmas fear of black men on the street.....(even though in his book, it was one particular vagrant black man who demanded money or was going to assault her, but then the bus came) but don't mention he lied about Grandma, because then your a typical white racist...see how this works??

Obama/Soulite messages are clear, don't question me or I smear you as a racist, I did it to Grandma, I did it to Ferraro, I did it to Bill Clinton, I did it to Don Imus, I did it to Fox News, I'll do it to you.

Post racial, my half white/half latino left nut.

Anonymous, you are a racist. Everyone here knows that you're a racist. You can whine and complain all you want, but I called you a racist because you are a racist. Ferraro is a racist too.

Obama's grandmother is not, she's a victim of living in a racist society. Make no mistake, living in a racist society taints us all. It leaves prejudice in ALL of our hearts. Even older black people often fear younger ones. That's not because they have a lot to fear, it's because for their entire life, society has told them they have something to fear. None of us are so perfect we can escape that.

But don't think for a moment there isn't a difference between the typical white person, who bears prejudice but hates it, and you. Those of us who know better try to do our best to mitigate against those feelings. People like you revel in it. The same goes for those Clinton supporters who gleefully declare that America will never vote for a Black man. Even if it were true, it's nothing to celebrate the way many here have.

This needs to stop. Rasmussen now has McCain beating Obama by 13 points, and beating Clinton by 20.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/gapres/

The longer this charade goes on, the more damaged Obama is going to be in the general. Looking at the field ahead, Clinton will win PA and WV, Obama will win NC and IN, changing nothing, extending the campaign another 6 weeks while McCain and Hillary keep attacking Obama at the same time.

If this keeps up, we're going to be facing deficits in the polls of up to 20 points this summer. Hillary needs to suck it up and get behind Obama so we can start running against McCain.

If she had any shot, I'd say stay in, but all she is right now is a more annoying and damaging Huckabee.

"We don't care that every day our candidate is exposed as a serial liar, with no significant experience, as someone who was a NAFTA cheerleader and then smeared others about it, someone who had nothing to do with FMLA and tried to steal the credit for it, who did not land in Bosnia under sniper fire, but got a nice bouquet of flowers and a poem from an 8 year old girl."

citations please
words matter

Yall are too funny. If it's over, why is Obama still campaigning? It's really that simple.

soullite, yazzel,and jacinth, how about coming back when you have actual points to make in place of lame insults.

If Obama does get the nomination, it will be extremely entertaining watching you (and he) try to bring back those democrats you (and he) have alienated.

"The same goes for those Clinton supporters who gleefully declare that America will never vote for a Black man"

gleefully declare?

citation please
words matter

it's pretty funny to hear a Clinton supporter suggest its the Obama campaign alienating Dem voters.

Last I checked it was the Clinton campaign suggesting there are 40 states and all the voters therein that "dont' matter"

The Clinton campaign suggesting that black voters aren't "significant"

The Clinton campaign dismissing Obama voters as "latte-sipping", "prius-driving" pansies who are more concerned with having a "hip black friend" than choosing a leader, who are caught up in the "concept" of political affirmative action

Please.

Let's have a discussion based in reality here. A few Clinton supporters are being insulted for refusing to engage the reality that a) she's basically already lost both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, and b) neither Rezko nor Wright killed the Obama campaign as hoped, and in fact may have left it stronger and c) there is no massive deluge of Clinton-leaning super-delegates coming anytime soon.

The sooner this reality is accepted, the sooner we can move on to the general, and get past the incessant insults the Clinton campaign keeps lobbing at Democrats, Independents, and red-staters

Fox-
Your link is to a poll for Georgia, not a general election poll. Typical of an Obama supporter to simply twist the facts to make their candidate look better than the lying hypocrite that he is. I am sure this error was a simple mistake that Fox was unaware of, just like Obama was unaware that his personal spriritual adviser was who he was. The beauty of Obama and his supporters is that they never let the truth stand in the way of what they want.

Obama supporters can STFU until they have 2025. If they don't get that it ain't over, and it doesn't matter if you have a lead or not. If you don't have that then it goes to the superdelegates and the argument they should vote for you because you are leading is a joke and will be exposed as such as we move forward. I hope the general electon ends in a deadlock with no one getting a majority of the electoral votes but McCain leading in electoral votes. The race would be thrown into the House and Nancy Pelosi's dumb ass will have forced the democratic congress to elect McCain with her stupid ignorant talk. That would be sweet justice for Obama and his idiotic followers.

FH, I was going to respond to your comment.

Then I remembered that you're the person who dishonestly accuses anyone of sexism whenever they don't agree with you. You're simply projecting the notion that ALL accusations of bigotry are dishonest because all of YOUR accusations of bigotry are dishonest.

As it is, I'm not going to bother giving you examples. If I did, you'd just start arguing that there wasn't sufficient 'glee' in a post for my comment, so I must be wrong. You'd do that because you're a hack without an honest bone in their body.

When someone basically says we're clueless and that we have to nominate Obama because white people will never get over the wright affair, they are being gleeful. If you haven't seen that on this site, you must be blind. It's not like these same people weren't telling us two weeks ago that white people would never vote for Obama for (insert reason here). We know there's not a one of you who would be even remotely sorry if Racism took Obama down.

Change 'have to nominate Obama' to 'can't nominate Obama'. Not a typo that really needs correcting, as it's obvious. But you never know what someone like FH will raise a fuss about.

That Obama is the front-runner for the nomination is a complete fluke. He has gamed the primary system in a way he will not be able to when the general comes.

Obama has got this far by using the idiosyncrasies of the caucuses, consolidating overwhelming support among the black community, and exploiting white liberal guilt. These tactics are completely useless in the general.

Note to Obama people: there are no caucuses in the general. Black voters make up only a small percentage of the votes. And independent swing voters don't feel guilty about racism.

Now do you want to nominate a feel good candidate you have fallen in love with, or win?

"When someone basically says we're clueless and that we have to nominate Obama because white people will never get over the wright affair, they are being gleeful."

assumes a lot; said person could be simply be cynical

fail

as for your "typo," I think your initial comment including "have to" syncs better with your fevered pitch of desperation:

shorter Obama supporters here today: we have to end this soon before Obama is even more unelectable than he is!

He has gamed the primary system

By getting more people to vote for him than his opponent and finding new voters to make up for the ones that couldn't be persuaded: the horror!

Hillary Clinton got to where she is by an idiosyncrasy of of system: the fact that voters will have as their natural first choice someone they've heard of. If people were voting based on "experience," then this would have been a Biden vs. Richardson primary fight.

fh:

here is one of the citations you've asked for

jeebus:

That Obama is the front-runner for the nomination is a complete fluke.

It strains credulity to suggest that 30 contests won, 12,000,000 or so popular votes, over a period of 2.5 months, is somehow a "fluke"

He has gamed the primary system in a way he will not be able to when the general comes.

"Gaming" the primary system suggests he has somehow changed the rules to favor his candidacy. In actuality, the rules were set long in advance, and agreed to by Clinton surrogates like Harold Ickes. The caucuses have a long tradition in the Democratic party and reward organization and enthusiasm, and Obama has those spades. It seems ridiculous to somehow hold that against him. Indeed, those things are vitally important in the general election.

Obama has got this far by using the idiosyncrasies of the caucuses,

Something open to the Clinton campaign as well. They chose to invest heavily in bigger states, in their biggest population centers. As we've seen, that was a poor strategic choice. A candidate's ability to look at the electoral field and make smart strategic choices about allocation of resources is an important quality when figuring out electability...and Obama's team obviously has this quality, and Clinton's team lacks it.

consolidating overwhelming support among the black community,

It's funny, but the A-A community was the Clinton campaign's original firewall. Remember "Is Obama black enough?!?" It was no given that the A-A community would rally around a guy who didn't have slave ancestral blood, was half-black, and had an african name, against the wife of the "first black President". The fact that he was so successful is to his credit, not his detriment.

and exploiting white liberal guilt.

This is just sour grapes. Obama's appeal is wide and strong in mostly Union states, with the regional coalition sometimes called "Greater New England" who, more than anything, should be proud of being on the anti-slavery side of the Civil War and being the more-enligthened half of the country during Jim Crow. The idea that any white person who doesn't support Clinton does so out of guilt, coupled with the suggestion that blacks only support Obama because he's black, only points to your inability to see beyond race, speaks to your prejudice, not ours

These tactics are completely useless in the general.

You mean that the ability to cobble together a winning coalition, raise record amounts of money, and beat a candidate with universal name recognition, incredibly high positives within the target population, and all the institutional support behind her...suggests someone is bad at electoral politics? Up is truly down in your world.

Note to Obama people: there are no caucuses in the general.

But a general election candidate will still need to inspire hordes of young people to drop out of school or quit their jobs to campaign 15 hours a day. A general election campaign will still need to be very-well organized. A general election campaign will still need the ability to strategically allocate resources to areas where they stand to gain the most and out-smart their opponents at electoral math. Obama's success in the caucus states suggests he'd be very good at that; Clinton's disastrous decisions to focus on big states Feb 5th, and then double down on that strategy post-Feb 5th, suggest she'd be atrocious in this manner

Black voters make up only a small percentage of the votes.

Actually, they are a significant % of the vote, significant enough that it was impossible for a Democrat to win without their overwhelming support.

Further, the same is true of Clinton, of course. She's been helped enormously by her stronghold on women voters, who regularly make up 58% of the Democratic primary. Guess what? They're historically only 51% of the general election. Hillary's structural advantage in the Dem primaries in that regard hasn't been discussed, but it's real, and only points out just how badly she's being beaten, that given the breaks along gender lines its basically inexcusable that she's not winning right now.

And independent swing voters don't feel guilty about racism.

This is pretty funny, given the fact that a big part of Obama's coalition is Independent voters. That he's consistently out-polled Hillary on this measure. That Indies switching over to join Obama has been a big dynamic in this primary, so much so that other Clinton supporters (see: Petey) have argued that not even the popular vote matters, only registered Democrats matter, because the popular vote is tainted by those damn Obama-loving Independenets.

Now do you want to nominate a feel good candidate you have fallen in love with, or win?

Well, that's a false choice. I want to nominate the best choice for President, who also happens to be a candidate I've fallen in love with precisely because he's so good, and has the best chance to win--in large part because of his appeals to swing voters, larger electoral map and general map-changing potential, and, as mentioned above, continued demonstration of strategic mastery over the Clinton campaign.

But don't you worry: now that Fox has clips of Jeremiah Wright and Rezko is on trial, Clinton is going to win PA and that'll sling shot her to victory!! Heh. Keep on dreamin

Gee, I wonder if anyone will still pretend to take exception to my description of Hillary's voters after Jeebus's little remark...

FH, Even if you manage to get Obama knocked out, it won't be Hillary that gets the Nod.

Those same rules you all crow about that would allow you to steal the nomination also allow the addition of other candidates. Do you really think that Hillary would be winner given all the baggage she carries into the general election?

You kind of prove my point. You'd bend over backwards and declare, like the Republicans declared in 2000, that someone needs to be psychic to discern another's intent. It's really not that hard. If it were merely cynicism, they wouldn't believe a woman could win either. I have my doubts as well, but unlike you I'm not offering a veto to ever bigot in the country.

I've made this clear plenty of times: Happily taking advantage of other peoples racism for personal gain is every bit as racist as actually hating black people yourself. Without this practice, systemic racism is impossible. Without systemic application, racism does not last long on its own. People like you offer racists aid and comfort by legitimizing their views. You can't deny culpability for that no matter how much you want to.

Michael, do you really think that white guilt is more prevalent in the South? They have more to feel guilty about to be sure but they don't seem to think that way at all.

I don't blame Obama for using the quirks of the primaries to his benefit, but those quirks will disappear now. A number of factors worked in his favor, but they are all about to go away and he will be lost at sea.

I know that Obama-bots are beyond reason at this point. They have been reduced to insisting that a campaign is over even when it is clearly not, calling on Hillary to drop out and stop being a sore loser. Echoing the "Sore/Loserman" idiocy of the Republicans in 2000 who wanted Al Gore to just go away.

Hopefully those Democrats who care first and foremost about the party itself will wake up to reality before it is too late. You can scoff and dismiss all you want but do me a favor and remember this comment threat on November 5 and know that at the least you can't say nobody warned you.

The silver lining of all this is that in 2012 we can nominate Sherrod Brown, who unlike both candidates in this race is a true progressive.

Michael, do you really think that white guilt is more prevalent in the South?

Well, apparently they must, because Virginia and Maryland went overwhelmingly for Obama. As you said, the only reason white people vote for Obama is out of guilt. QED....

The race ended when Hillary couldn't win in Wisconsin. She's just Huckabee, now, keeping the campaign going out of principle until her opponent gets a delegate majority.

African-American voters were firmly on Clinton's side and then defected to Obama because they liked him better. If Hillary Clinton were Hillary Smith, she'd be a corporate lawyer or maybe Illinois's senior senator. Don't go claiming that her status as presidential contender is anything other than an artifact of being a familiar face from the Bill years.

This needs to stop. Rasmussen now has McCain beating Obama by 13 points, and beating Clinton by 20.

That would be the state-wide polling in Georgia.

Check your damn links, Fox, before crapping yourself.

"She's just Huckabee, now, keeping the campaign going out of principle until her opponent gets a delegate majority."

Not so. Huckabee continued to run, but at no time was he condescending, mean, using lowlife tactics or democratic frames against McCain. In short, he put forth a positive vision of his candidacy and acted like a gentleman. The same can not be said for the Clintons, who seem to reach new lows every day.

Too bad the Clintons don't have the class of a Mike huckabee.

Jeebus, if you're relying on the south to give you a Democratic President, you'll be waiting a very long time.

For the overwhelming history of this nation, the 'Southern' party has been the minority party. Often, it's been little more than a regional party. Thats where the Republicans have been trending.

If it were up to me, we'd institute the reforms needed to bring the south up to par with the rest of the nation economically. But that will never happen until southern whites let go of their misplaced hatred and resentment towards black folks. Until then, they will keep voting for the 'White' party and keep voting to cut their own noses off to spite their face. It's a moral tragedy that they would do that to themselves, and I'm not even kind of suggesting it absolves the rest of the country from our own culpability in that, but the first step has to be taken by them. Every time we try, their leaders resort to racism and fear to stop us.

jeebus: "Hopefully those Democrats who care first and foremost about the party itself will wake up to reality before it is too late. You can scoff and dismiss all you want but do me a favor and remember this comment threat on November 5 and know that at the least you can't say nobody warned you."

Fool, those of us who care about the party want a democrat to win the Presidency in November. Whether that is Obama or Clinton, at this precarious juncture, doesn't really mattter. Yet Obama and Clinton are both tanking in the polls vs. McCain--why do you think that is? The primary must end now, before it is too late.

The bottom line is that if Clinton does not drop out of the primary soon, Obama will become unelectable and we lose in November. Similarily, if Obama does not drop out of the primary soon, Clinton will become unelectable and we lose in November. Both these things may possibly have already happened.

I am on record as supporting a Clinton/Obama unity ticket. The problem here is people such as yourself who care more about the political fortunes of your pet candidate (who are 99% identical on the issues) than us actually taking back the White House.

jeebus: "The silver lining of all this is that in 2012 we can nominate Sherrod Brown, who unlike both candidates in this race is a true progressive."

Wow, you don't know what you're talking about at all. Sherrod Brown?? And you're harping on and on about electablity?

And thanks for preemptively ceding the 2008 presidential race. Really, that's wonderful. I wonder how many more people are going to die in Iraq before we have another democratic president.

SoulLite,

You make many assumptions.

“FH, Even if you manage to get Obama knocked out, it won't be Hillary that gets the Nod.”

It is not, nor has it ever been, my intention to get Obama knocked out. I am arguing in this thread only for the continuation of the primary process. I see no reason to end it because the supporters of the frontrunner are getting antsy. I find it hard to believe that if the numbers were reversed, you wouldn’t argue for the same.

“Those same rules you all crow about that would allow you to steal the nomination also allow the addition of other candidates”

Interesting that in your view, Clinton would be stealing it, but that a third candidate would be allowed to have the nomination. Even still, I’d be interested in seeing who said other candidate was in your hypothetical before making any decisions to support that person or not. Edwards was my candidate of choice, for instance; so he would be fine with me, as would Gore…as would Obama if he would make any effort to reach out to Clinton supporters.

“If it were merely cynicism, they wouldn't believe a woman could win either.”

No, that would be sexism. Look, I really thought Obama would have been a great VP choice for Clinton. I now doubt that, because of the baggage of Wright, not because Obama is black, and definitely not with glee. I happen to believe that whichever gets nominated is going to need the support of the other, or McCain wins. Period.

“Happily taking advantage of…”

mind reading again or citation please

“Happily taking advantage of other peoples racism for personal gain is every bit as racist as actually hating black people yourself. Without this practice, systemic racism is impossible. Without systemic application, racism does not last long on its own. People like you offer racists aid and comfort by legitimizing their views. You can't deny culpability for that no matter how much you want to.”

The red herring of “happily taking advantage” aside, I’m pretty sure I will be seeing no personal gain from whomever is elected in November.
but

Happily taking advantage of other peoples sexism for personal gain is every bit as sexist as actually hating women yourself. Without this practice, systemic sexism is impossible. Without systemic application, sexism does not last long on its own. People like you offer sexists aid and comfort by legitimizing their views. You can't deny culpability for that no matter how much you want to.
If Obama had even just mentioned sexism in his speech, or if he manages to do so in the future, I’d feel better about his nomination. He spoke eloquently of black and white resentment but missed out on the triple play.

Let’s let the primary play out.

"Don't go claiming that her status as presidential contender is anything other than an artifact of being a familiar face from the Bill years."

Geraldine? Is that you?

fh:"Edwards was my candidate of choice, for instance; so he would be fine with me, as would Gore…as would Obama if he would make any effort to reach out to Clinton supporters."

???? What the hell do you think he's doing? Last I checked Obama isn't exactly going around PA courting the black vote/white liberal latte vote. He's going after the women, the working class whites, old people. Conversely Clinton's the one who's just trying to hang on to her existing base instead of attempting to expand her universe of support.

soullite is a race baiter
that is all he has brought to the comments section since at least Super Tuesday. There is nothing else there

Whether Obama wins the nomination or Clinton wins the nomination, its going to be superdelegates that put them over the top...so how is one winning different then the other.

If neither have enough delegates going into the convention; then they are basically starting from scratch and have to have a superdelegate primary to decide the winner.

I don't see how that makes Hillary any less legitimate.

Obama didn't 'win' the pledge delegates and Hillary didn't win the pledge delegates because the rules say you need 2024, so now we go to sudden death with superdelegate voting.

Just why would that be unfair?

And givent hat most uncommitted super-delegate are 'typical white people', soullite and Obama should not be suprised or ouraged that they will do what typical white people do and that is vote against the blacks because they fear and loath them.

I just can't wait for Obama to put that in his convention speech...

Geraldine? Is that you?

No, I'm just repeating a simple fact that Hillary is simply gaming the system via the built-in advantage of name recognition and establishment inertia. To claim that this is a more fair method of nominee selection than "gaming" the system by getting more people to vote for you is simply ridiculous.

Soullite: ""But that will never happen until southern whites let go of their misplaced hatred and resentment towards black folks""

Actually, Southern whites, being typical white people, are just as racist as their northern white people.

Since white people are typically racist, there is no need to seperate the racist by geographic area.

There was an interesting story about HRC buried in a back page of the WAPO. It is absolutely certain that the story she is telling of how she ran from a plane in Bosnia after it had landed, ducking bullets, is a lie. Telling tall tales, being a fantasist, should be a bigger disqualification for the highest office than having a clown as a pastor.

today, my beautiful hike in the desert amidst painted wildflowers and easter blue skies, was disturbed, when i started thinking about...........
the Clintons :-( :-(
the thought of them came upon me, like a pebble in still waters. :-(
i was watching vultures in their magnificent thermal soaring, thinking that they are so beautiful, yet very opportunistic predators.
but, watching them glide in patient wait, was the realization that, of course, they do that in order to eat.
....whereas, some people, like the clintons, are opportunistic predators, because it is simply their way of life.
......then, under the easter blue skies, i thought of how moved i was yesterday, by the profoundly pensive and distantly fixed gaze of barack obama, while he stood next to richardson.
in his gaze, one could sense the joys and profound disappointments...kindnesses and betrayals of what he has been going through....and i thought, if i were to have painted a portrait of barack obama this weekend, he would be wearing a crown of thorns.
he is being tested in the refiner's blue
fire....and stands with both the highest and the most condemned.
he tries to speak of love and frailty, and people twist his words.
goodness takes on a human form, and offers a chance for spiritual renewal, progress on earth...and some are too blind to see it.
......

jacqueline-
you left out the part where you say God Damn America who would do this to Barack Obama.

let's leave God out of it, jacqueline; seems to me he's caused quite enough damage this primary

" It is absolutely certain that the story she is telling of how she ran from a plane in Bosnia after it had landed, ducking bullets, is a lie. "

oh, it gets better then that. there's actual footage of her arrival. i think she's just having a mitt moment. maybe she'll *remember* marching with mlk next..

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

Thanks for the additional info. I don't call this a Mitt moment because Mitt was talking about his father -- he could have misremembered. In any case, the event wasn't a mere ten years distant, and didn't happen to him. This is a bolder fairytale. Or she is someone with a very tenuous grasp on reality and believes her own tall tales. That's dangerous.

Something tells me if we look back through Reverend Wrights ancestry, we will probably find a few rich white people.....

Its hard to find really good data but it appears less than 30% of the African American population descended from US slaves. In fact, over the last 5 census, over 10% of African Americans state that they are either first or second generation immigrants.

For the overwhelming history of this nation, the 'Southern' party has been the minority party.

Not really true, unfortunately. Basically true for the period from 1860 to 1932, when the pre-Southern strategy Republicans were the majority party. Otherwise, the southern party has generally been the majority party - the Jeffersonian Republicans, the Jacksonian Democrats, the New Deal Coalition, and the most recent Republican majorities have all had the south as a major component. (The 1968-1994 period, when the South tended to vote Republican in presidential elections, but still had many conservative Democratic officeholders, was a weird transitional period, which seems to be at an end).