"The mystery is why the party's elders, and a critical mass of superdelegates, haven't stepped in to stop it"

Stepping in to stop it at this point, after the FL and MI debacles, and before primaries Clinton is predicted to win would cause a stink to high heaven. African Americans are not the only democrats the DNC is capable of pissing off this year, Ezra.

The only way HRC is nominated is if Obama flames out in a scandal or medical emergency or something like that. If that happens it'll be handed to her. So why is she fighting so hard? Fighting isn't going to make the meteor hit Obama in the head.

If she was smart she'd find a way to drop out between now and PA. But she's not smart. She's merely tenacious.

The mystery is why the party's elders, and a critical mass of superdelegates, haven't stepped in to stop it.

That's the wrong question, because they're not an organized group. You have to ask yourself, rather, why wouldn't any given single superdelegate act now and endorse Obama? The answer is that if he or she did, and Clinton did win and become President, Clinton has a long memory. As the saying goes, never wound the king. Those with strong preferences have already all endorsed. I imagine that the rest are all watching each other, waiting for someone else to jump first.

I'm actually not against Clinton continuing up until the convention. I'd just prefer that she (and Obama) start attacking McCain.

They're each going to win their share of the remaining states, and can construct any internal argument they want. Given that, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to beat up on each other.

Each of them basically fighting against two people seems retarded right about now.

"The mystery is why the party's elders, and a critical mass of superdelegates, haven't stepped in to stop it."

Maybe, just maybe, because they're doing the right and smart thing.

I assume, Ezra, from the way you've posed the question that you think they should shut the process down. Really? You think elites should shut down the process before it's clear to the Clinton campaign and her supporters that this thing is over? Much is made of the anger that a Clinton win would generate among African-Americans and his other supporters. People tend to forget about Clinton's millions of supporters, many of whom are white and working class and would be ripe for the picking by the McCain should the elites prematurely end this process. (Which, I suppose I'll point out, isn't officially over till someone has a majority of delegates or the superdelates vote.) Already according to Pew, 20 percent of white democrats would vote for McCain over Obama. If the elites shut this down, that number could jump to 25 percent, and this election would belong to McCain. Even worse for the Dems than a primary that goes on to June is a primary that elites shut down in a way seen as unfair by one side.

On a related note, Obama's opposition to revotes in Florida and Michigan--which is the main obstacle to revotes (esp, in Mi) are going to hurt him in the general election. I think the party as whole, and activist, should do more to push for revotes.

Ezra's right. I write in NIXONLAND that even the McGovern campaign thought they had a chance, as late as the day of the election.

I agree with you both that there's no reason to assume nefarious intent--although I don't rule it out.

And I agree that Clinton is wrong, and she is basically done, for the reasons you mention.

But I think there's another overlooked aspect that explains why she perseveres: by nearly all the metrics we have traditionally tallied up to declare previous candidates toast, she simply is not there yet.
Low or plummeting in the polls? Nope. Few wins? No. Regional candidate? No way. Lacking adequate media time? Ha. Lacking star power? Nuh-uh. Bad campaigner? One of the best. Establishment support? Still there. Weak in the clutch? Just the opposite. Prone to self-inflected wounds? Surprisingly yes, but seems to have turned that corner. Out of money? Hmmm. Maybe. But March receipts must still be fairly good.

She's not accepting the delegate reality, because that's the ONLY metric in which she's seriously behind. And she knows that the fact it is the most important reality is not iron-clad--if she hits a winning streak, it's malleable. It's nearly impossible to think of her as a failed candidate.

Reagan 76 was winnable. Kennedy 80, for the want of unbound pledges, was winnable. Hart 84, for the want of smarter strategy and more money, was winnable.

Hillary Clinton's position is so much stronger than any of those examples that she's entirely within her rights to continue.

But she could easily continue without tearing the party apart. That's all on her.

I agree with you almost entirely Ezra, that inside their campaign it looks like they have a chance. When you're working on a campaign you only focus on what you CAN do, and not what the odds are. "Never tell me what the odds are" is a pervasive attitude in our culture, and sometimes pretty dangerous.

Except you forget one other aspect of human nature: they probably really fucking hate Obama right now. Locked in a neck and neck battle with him for over a year now, misinterpretting and exaggerating every thing he and his supporters have said for a year, any campaign would develop a lot of hate towards their opponent. It's clear people inside the Obama campaign do, and I gotta believe people inside the Clinton camp do. I certainly could see a sentiment of "if he/she wins with such dirty tactics that they destroy the party, then the party deserves to lose."

I also agree, and would just ad: the superdelegates are not only not ending it, they are still propping her up with a +40 advantage! It's bad enough that they started her off with +100 before a single vote was cast. What possible rationale is there for Obama to still be trailing by 40 this late in the campaign?

Of course I understand that the superdelegates are individuals, and they aren't necessarily thinking in terms of collective action. But any superdelegate who gets a call from Bill asking to wait until after Pennsylvania needs to remember that she is still holding onto a substantial superdelegate lead despite underperforming versus Obama by every conceivable metric three quarters of the way through the voting.

Ezra,
I'd add that Clinton's campaign is heavy with DLC Dems, a cohort within the party that has seen its credibility and influence dim over the last few election cycles. This election was their shot to reassert control over the party, and to get back into control of the Executive branch. Me thinks their ferocity in part betrays a sense of entitlement in this round, and also a once exalted now mostly drowned sense of Cinton's invincibility. I think the DLC Dems of Clinton's generation are watching their last chance at power be dismissed by more voters than not, and they are reacting uncivily to their misfortune. I wouldn't be surprised if many Democrat- identified partisans of this group wander to McCain in this cycle, and eventually into the Republican party permenently.
All in all a catharsis for the Democratic party, and possibly a chance at organization transformation.

The Obama campaign doesn't exactly frighten the DLC.
Look at his support: a ton of early money and support from insiders, Wall Street, and all kinds of bundlers and bagmen, lots of red state Dems and a huge amount of support from affluents who are generally fiscal moderates/social liberals. His grassroots organizing and African-American support are about the only thing that distinguish Obama from a typical DLC candidate. Goolsbee, Liebman, Cutler and Rouse and the whole post-partisan thing are straight out of DLC central casting.

Had she shown some of this "ferocity" and "tenacity" (or any shred of leadership) during her seven-plus years in the Senate, she probably wouldn't be counting on some combination of miracle, superdelegates, and Imbamaplosion to get her the nomination.

If she (and her surrogates) would direct some of their anger at John McCain (and George W. Bush), maybe Obama supporters wouldn't be so hostile to the idea of a Clinton nomination.

Good point. I have been giving quite some thought to this, and although I am an Obama supporter, I just can't see when exactly Clinton should have quit. She and Obama came out of Super Tuedsay dead even, so she could not well have quit at that point. But actually, almost everything that has happened since then was pretty predictable. The Clinton people looked at the landscape on Feb 6 and said right away that she may lose everything between then and March 4, so they focus on Texas and Ohio. As it happens, the nomination was basically lost for her in February, in Wisconsin the latest, but she couldn't say just two weeks before her best big states that OK, let's get out. And then, of course, she won Ohio and Texas (sort of). So, even though it didn't help much in terms of delegates, she again couldn't quit. In the best of all worlds, she could've said after Mississippi that the delegates are just not there for her to win, but with PA being the next state this would have been probably expecting too much. And of course, in all likelihood she wins PA, and it goes on like that. So, I agree that it could not have come from the Clinton campaign: I don't blame them for not withdrawing, though I very much blame them for the kind of campaign they are waging. The supers should have stepped in, between Wisconsin and March 4 and decide it for Obama. And even that would not have been very pretty, with revotes in Michigan and Florida still in limbo at that point. As for now, my best case scenario is this: Obama loses narrowly in PA, wins in North Carolina and finishes very close in Indiana on May 6. Clinton maybe nets 20 pledged delegates in the three states and Obama is still ahead with close to 140. With about 220 pledged delegates left at that point, the supers can totally credibly say that it is over and flock to him. She is out before the next vote.

From MyDD:

"Contrary to the inevitability campaign Obama supporters are currently waging (what else is left after failing to win it outright on votes or to change the superdelegate rules in the middle of the game...) high level Democrats still have reservations about Barack Obama as the nominee and Obama supporters would be well-advised to accept and respect this fact. Where are all those superdelegates who were waiting in the wings to come out for Obama after March 4? If it's so impossible for Hillary Clinton to win, why aren't they ending this thing right now? John Edwards's refusal to lend his weight to Obama's candidacy at this point speaks volumes for both the real doubts some have about Obama as well as the continued viability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy."

Lawdy, lawdy, the group-think around here!

Clinton's not getting out because she's not beat. When--and if--she's beat, she'll get out.

For cripes sakes, it's only March. This thing is basically a tie, and it's going on for quite awhile yet.

Frankly, I think the only way Obama really wins is if Clinton gets out. If he "backs in" without re-votes in MI and FL, he's toast. If there are revotes in MI and FL, Clinton likely wins.

John Petty -- What groupthink are you talking about? By my impression, roughly half the commenters don't think Clinton can be faulted for staying in the race, and many of those disagreeing with Ezra are like me Obama supporters. And I mostly agree with you, too. Please let's not perpetuate ths specious idea that all the group think is on the other side.

Silva66, very nice point about the struggle in D.C. It's good to be king and queen, and the jesters and knights love to see their own thoughtful faces on TV. (If not for the House of Clinton, would Lanny Davis ever be asked about anything?) If John McCain wins, everything will remain the same for our dear DLC Dems. I'd be surprised if any of them, with Queen Hillary at the top of the list, would give up that arrangement to make room for some pretty mulatto boy and a bunch of goobers from Wisconsin and Colorado. In other words, Ezra, you're wrong.

I'll join the amen choir and say that Senator Clinton has every right to continue to contest the nomination. I just wish she would take the fight to Senator McCain instead of Senator Obama. It might even be a better campaign tactic with the super automatic doubleplusgood delegates.

I'll join the amen choir and say that Senator Clinton has every right to continue to contest the nomination. I just wish she would take the fight to Senator McCain instead of Senator Obama. It might even be a better campaign tactic with the super automatic doubleplusgood delegates.

And while we might wish she'd attack McCain, that provides no clear benefit to her unless she's the frontrunner. While it's in the party's long-term interest to take the fight to McCain, in the short-term attacking McCain benefits Obama far more than it benefits her.

She's already made her affirmative case for the nomination. It hasn't given her the lead. Consequently, the only way she can regain the lead is to push Obama's negatives. Attacking McCain won't help that.

To make the rest of her campaign purely beneficial to the party, she would have to sacrifice her own designs on the nomination; stay in the race only to steal some positive media attention from McCain while not campaigning against Obama. That's not going to happen.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4703

This is Chris Bowers's latest delegate math projuection...look at Total 5 which includes Michigan and florida (the Jan 29th results) and Clinton is AHEAD. I think Chris gave Obama more delegates than he's going to get in Pa, Ind and NC and PR...so I would lower the Obama total #5 by 15 and raise hers by 15-20.

And this why Obama and his campaign are sneakily and underhandedly fighting revotes in Michigan and Florida....because doing so would have her in the lead in both delelgates and the popular vote and momentum..

She should keep fighting because she can win. And she has a better shot against McCain in the general than he does...because Rev. Wright is the slow, seeping poison that will kill him in November.

Oh and why would anyone support a candidate who keeps people from voting? If a Republican behaved like this you would be howling bloody murder. Why aren't you?

I assume, Ezra, from the way you've posed the question that you think they should shut the process down. Really? You think elites should shut down the process before it's clear to the Clinton campaign and her supporters that this thing is over?

Let me just jump in here and point out that it will never be clear to Clinton that it's over.

I predict that on the day of Obama's inauguration she'll still be predicting victory.

It is time for the party to shut it down before she tears us apart.

And this why Obama and his campaign are sneakily and underhandedly fighting revotes in Michigan and Florida....because doing so would have her in the lead in both delelgates and the popular vote and momentum.

No. And no. Michigan and Florida screwed their voters, not Obama.

And the super delegates need to quit fearing the Clintons. If there's anything this election has proved, a candidate doesn't need to crawl to the party elders to get financing.

Quit fearing them. Their day is done. Do the right thing.

NAP,

Exactly right,

The Obama campaign doesn't exactly frighten the DLC.
Look at his support: a ton of early money and support from insiders, Wall Street, and all kinds of bundlers and bagmen, lots of red state Dems and a huge amount of support from affluents who are generally fiscal moderates/social liberals. His grassroots organizing and African-American support are about the only thing that distinguish Obama from a typical DLC candidate. Goolsbee, Liebman, Cutler and Rouse and the whole post-partisan thing are straight out of DLC central casting.

Posted by: not a populist | March 22, 2008 10:33 PM

"If she (and her surrogates) would direct some of their anger at John McCain (and George W. Bush), maybe Obama supporters wouldn't be so hostile to the idea of a Clinton nomination."

Conversely, if Obama kept his (and his surrogate) attacks aimed at McCain, he'd have a better case at claiming "it's over" with Clinton. Stepping up his attacks on her, as he is doing now, makes the case as much as anything else that she's still in this.

Until Barack Obama reaches the 2,025 delegate threshold needed to secure the nomination, he is not the Democratic nominee. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

And what Ezra fails to take into account is that Obama has no more a chance of closing this race out without first securing the requisite support of sufficient numbers of superdelegates, than does Hillary Clinton.

It really doesn't matter if Obama's currently ahead in the pledged delegate / superdelegate count. The only count that matters is the one to be taken on the convention floor in August. Obama still needs to get another 400 or so delegates in his corner, out of the approximately 900+ delegates and superdelegates remaining at large, to reach the magic number of 2,025.

And while Obama has the inside track, nothing in politics is certain. If he can't close the deal with the number of superdelegates that'll be needed to get him over the top, he won't be our nominee. Period.

Therefore, this premature rush to call the race on Obama's behalf, given that his current and projected delegate count still falls well short of that 2,025 threshold to ensure success at the nomination, is as unseemly as it is juvenile. This contest needs to play out to its conclusion.

I don't think that anyone's calling the race for Obama; we're all just trying to do the math and figure out how the math drives campaign policy and sideline speculation.

Whenever a big, professional system does something that seems dumb, I tend to think I'm missing something. If both Obama and Clinton began campaigning as if they were the candidate, letting the country know why they should be President and McCain shouldn't, wouldn't that provide the best platform for the remaining voters - and the superdelegates - to choose the best candidate? Here we have a unique chance to actually audition the candidtates in general election conditions and see who can make the better case. It's two on one.

I see no reason for either Democratic candidate to be campaigning against the other with the alternative strategy available: future primary outcomes will be unsurprising, and uncommitted superdelegates should (well, it's in their job description, anyway) choose the candidate who is better at campaigning against McCain, which is the whole point.

What am I missing?

By the way, your captcha system still sucks. Interesting error message, though - "The text you entered was wrong." You mean my commend lacked doctrinal purity?

I don't think that anyone's calling the race for Obama; we're all just trying to do the math and figure out how the math drives campaign policy and sideline speculation.

Whenever a big, professional system does something that seems dumb, I tend to think I'm missing something. If both Obama and Clinton began campaigning as if they were the candidate, letting the country know why they should be President and McCain shouldn't, wouldn't that provide the best platform for the remaining voters - and the superdelegates - to choose the best candidate? Here we have a unique chance to actually audition the candidtates in general election conditions and see who can make the better case. It's two on one.

I see no reason for either Democratic candidate to be campaigning against the other with the alternative strategy available: future primary outcomes will be unsurprising, and uncommitted superdelegates should (well, it's in their job description, anyway) choose the candidate who is better at campaigning against McCain, which is the whole point.

By the way, your captcha system still sucks. Interesting error message, though: "The text you entered was wrong." You mean my comment lacked doctrinal purity?

Re the numerous comments to the effect of "I wish they'd attack McCain rather than each other"

Most seem to be in the context of "don't weaken the eventual Democratic nominee." But there's now a stronger and thuddingly obvious justification: if the ultimate choice is to be driven by "who would fare best against the Republican nominee"... well, dammit, I'm no more interested in superdelegates' theorizing than in mine or thine. Have at it and find out.

debcoop,
Bower makes Clinton the "winner" by throwing all the "uncommitted" delegates in Michigan away. Allow most/all of those to go to Obama and he still leads.

"""the delegates will be focused on placating his voters (particularly African-Americans)"""

This is interesting. I thought it was the Democrat Party that was beyond race. Why should the superdelegates care what the race is of the candidate? Why should that matter in their choice?

Why shouldn't the superdelegates want to placate whites? There are a lot more white voters who vote...so why does the party feel the need to placate the African Americans?

Do they FEAR what will happen if they don't? Is Obama right and they are typical white people who fear blacks?

I think alot of people who voted for Obama now feel they were conned.

After hearing Reverend Wright and Obama spending 20 years with him as a mentor, best friend and spiritual guide, having his children attend his diatribes, many feel betrayed that his message of unity and post racial politics was just as fake as the NEW Coke.

Now with him proclaiming what the 'typical' white person is, he certainly feels he can lecture white folks on what is acceptable behavior. This isn't dialogue, this is dictation.

Many here in Virgina voted for Obama not knowing any of this background and were shocked when they saw those videoes. At the very least he's lost the 'new kind of politician' brand with lots of people.

Its no different then if Obama now came out for the Iraq war and supported John McCains policy and apologized for saying the surge wouldn't work. Alot of anti-war voters would certainly feel betrayed and he would definitely lose their votes.

The superdelegates are going to have to weigh just how effective Obamas con was and how much real support he has left.

"If she (and her surrogates) would direct some of their anger at John McCain (and George W. Bush), maybe Obama supporters wouldn't be so hostile to the idea of a Clinton nomination."

This is exactly right - and it also seems like the best campaigning tactic for her right now.

The Clintons have been attacking Obama for months. If they haven't been able to make their attacks stick by now, they aren't going to be able to make them stick in the next couple of months. With Obama looking like the likely winner, the Republicans have plenty of incentive to attack him themselves, and they aren't hampered by the need to keep Democrats onside that the Clintons have.

At the same time, where is the case for Clinton right now? She's obviously no longer inevitable, and her "experience" card is blowing up in her face. The best way she sells herself right now is to go negative against Grandpa, take some chunks out of McCain and show herself as a capable streetfighter who can do some damage to the Republicans.

By a lucky coincidence, this also happens to be the best thing for the Democratic Party. If she's unsuccessful, Obama can disown her. If she's successful, they can give her the VP slot so she can carry on her noble work. And if she's _really_ successful, they can give her the nomination...

"""If she (and her surrogates) would direct some of their anger """

Who's angry? Seems like just because Hillary's going to win the nomination with superdelegates, the same way Obama would, it would seem that maybe the Obama suppoerts will be angry.

Another factor, I'd think, is that candidates are hesitant to bow out until the fat lady has sung for the last time. It's out of a sense of loyalty to their supporters.

I respect the fact that Hillary isn't quitting, but I hope that in the near future the HRC dead-enders (see TPM this week, with the "I would vote for McCain over Obama because he was mean to Hillary," etc.) get the memo that they need to simmer down now.

Ezra's entire argument starts from a false premise- that leading in delegates or the popular vote is sufficent to lay claim to the nomination. This is flat out false. Our system is one where winning means obtaining a majority, not a lead. Obama is attempting to steal the nomination by keeping revotes from happening in FL and MI and by trying to delegitimize the role of the superdelegates whose purpose was never meant to be to annoint the "leader", but to exercise independent judgment. Both need superdelegates to win the nomination and Obama needs to argue he is more electable or make the better president if he wants them to vote for him, not this non sense about him leading. If he can't do that then the superdelegates will have abdicated their duty if they vote for him anyway. If they give in to the threats of Obama supporters then mob rule will have taken over the party and that will not bode well for November.

debcoop, you are first, overlooking the fact that Clinton has flipflopped on Michigan and Florida. Second, that it is far from certain that a revote in Michigan would produce a Clinton victory. I'd say a 10-point Obama win is more plausible. Third, it's unlikely that Obama would not do better in Florida after a revote than he did before Clinton tried to game a broken system. Finally, the idea that Hillary gets close in delegates over the next ten states ignores North Carolina, Montana, Oregon and South Dakota. Those look like decent wins for Obama, and Puerto Rico may well go for him as well. That leaves Clinton little chance of making up significant ground, far less catching his lead. As with delegates, so with the popular vote. Clinton can choose whether she makes herself thoroughly toxic for the future i.e. 2012 if Obama loses, or whether she recognizes the damage she is doing to her party and herself and quits before she really does self-destruct politically. Obviously, the choice is hers.

Jim D post not his comment::"""I would vote for McCain over Obama because he was mean to Hillary," ...

How's that any different than Obama supporters saying that if Obama isn't given a coronation they will stay home and not vote for Hillary.

It goes both ways..Obamas claims about the most pledge delegates and the most popular votes are meaningless and have no standing within the party rules. The super delegates could have made their votes public a year ago, before Obama got a single pledged vote. Obama would have happily accepted their votes...he would not have said, NO, wait until I'm winning the popular vote in June 09 before you commit your superdelegate vote.

uh oh, yazzel troll is back! but since it's Easter, I'll feed you a bit

"Third, it's unlikely that Obama would not do better in Florida after a revote than he did before Clinton tried to game a broken system."

LOL at Clinton "gaming the broken system," when it's Obama whose nomination will depend on caucuses (TX anyone?), on disenfranchising MI and FL, on supporters like you trying to nullify the rest of the primaries by calling on Clinton to drop out now, and on superdelegates like Richardson voting against the will of his state (which is supposed to be a no-no if Super D's vote Clinton when their states did not). If that ain't gaming a broken system, I don't know what is.

Finally, if Obama would win MI, as you say, why is he against a redo there? The logic fails.

That's rich, Anonymous calling yazzel a troll.

And I love all the Clinton supporters ranting about the importance of superdelegates. I trust that they will cheerfully abide the results if the supers, following Nancy Pelosi's direction that they heed the pledged delegate count, pick Obama. Prerogative cuts many ways.

There are four possibilities at this point:
1. Clinton wins the nomination and goes on to win the election.
2. Clinton wins the nomination but loses to McCain.
3. Obama wins the nomination and goes on to win the election.
4. Obama wins the nomination but loses to McCain.

It's no surprise that the Clinton campaign would both prefer #1, and cling tenaciously to belief that it is still possible.

But why does it look like they prefer #2 to #3?

Regardless of your position on the nomination, it doesn't take a very long look at McCain to see that *either* Democrat is preferable to him by a long way. If outcomes 2 and 4 aren't at the bottom of your preferences list, you really really need to rethink, and that applies to candidates and supporters.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I recognize that if the superdelegates stepped in now to "end it" by declaring their preferences, the nomination would go to Clinton. The supers still favor Clinton and are not going to declare for Obama unless & unitil they absolutely have to.

As for Edwards, I suspect the reason for his failure to endorse is that he's still hoping to be the nominee. If the convention deadlocks and goes more than 3 or 4 ballots, they may start looking for a compromise candidate. And that could be Edwards--or even Al Gore, the other great and silent sphinx.

"I trust that they will cheerfully abide the results if the supers, following Nancy Pelosi's direction that they heed the pledged delegate count, pick Obama."

except of course that Richardson, Kerrey and Kennedy are NOT following that directive so why should anyone else?

Democrats will leave the party in droves if the superdelegates grant the nomination to Obama without revotes in Florida and Michigan or under the pretense that the pledged delegate lead entitles one to the nomination. That was not the purpose of superdelegates and it will be a nightmare for the party if the impression is that the superdelegates were extorted into voting for Obama by threats of backlash. A majority of delegates entitles you to the nomination, a lead short of that majority is insignificant. If Obama is unwilling to acknowledge that publicly then he is trying to steal the nomination and it will not be tolerated.

If either side , Obama or Clinton, leaves the party in droves over the fact their candidate didn't win under the terms they wanted to win, then screw both sides. I am sorry- but wrong priorities after 5 years of war with Iraq, us being in the middle of what could be one of the worse recessions in decades (as in Japan stytle recession that lasts years rather than months), our dwindled world name, the destruction of the middle class and a multitude of other events under the GOP. And, please, don't reply back that only candidate is the choosen one. I am so over both supporters. You don't care about America, because if you did, you would stop to notice who has really destroyed the country over the last 8 years, and is proming more of the same for another 8. You are all unbelievale. As is this primary.

It shouldn't be a mystery at all, look at any national poll, Hillary is supported by nearly 45% of the Democratic electorate (and perhaps a plurality of actual Democrats). It's better for the party it the primaries end, but not necessarily if it looks like an inside deal. The voters of Texas could have ended it, but didn't. The voters of Pennsylvania or Indiana can too. It'd b much better to have a conclusive primary result than a insider push, not mention that could well backfire and boost her votes in PA or any remaining state

Poor old anonymous, too lacking in credibility to even have a name. Now that's trolling! And yes, Clinton has tried to game the system. Remember how she used to say that Michigan and Florida "don't count"? Or did you forget those pesky little details? Obama has stayed out of the row, because he has no reason to fight for a failed idiocy by the Michigan and Florida powerbrokers. They broke the rules, knew what the ccnsequences would be, and now are trying to pretend they were treated unfairly. That's pathetic - and there's no reason for Obama to endorse their folly, or the unfair fake primary they ran. Now, anonymous, want to talk about Tuzla? How's that sniper fire?

As for Edwards, I suspect the reason for his failure to endorse is that he's still hoping to be the nominee.

Yup. In 2012. That's my take. Endorsing either of the remaining candidates would piss off too many people in the event he wants to run in the next go around.

From the "I wish I'd thought of this department":

"The 'Hillary should quit now' argument is made entirely out of bad faith, and it’s easy to prove. If indeed she can’t win, whether or not she quits is irrelevant, just as it’s irrelevant whether Mike Gravel quits. If she can win, then telling her to quit is stupid and insulting…not to her, but to those who support her. There’s no third possibility."

Sums it up nicely.

Obama is free to concentrate his attacks on McCain anytime he wishes.

"If indeed she can’t win, whether or not she quits is irrelevant"

Not remotely true - unless she just doesn't give a damn about the Democratic party. She can prolong this and damage the party, or she can be mature and put the interest of her party and its cause above herself. There's a big difference there - but does Clinton have enough honesty to grasp it?

I think alot of people who voted for Obama now feel they were conned.

"She can prolong this and damage the party, or she can be mature and put the interest of her party and its cause above herself. There's a big difference there - but does Clinton have enough honesty to grasp it?"

bullshit

the EXACT SAME could be same about Obama

except, of course, he'll have to also disenfranchise MI and FL to do it

good luck floating that in November

except, of course, he'll have to also disenfranchise MI and FL to do it

The MI and FL democratic parties did that to themselves way back when HRC was still inevitable. And no one in either state is "disenfranchised". They can still vote in November just like every other American citizen over eighteen.
(Is is just me, or does all the whining seem to be coming from Florida? and the Clinton campaign, of course).

Perhaps Senator Clinton remembers that Senator Robert F. Kennedy won the most primaries and led in 1968--until June. After all, Arthur Bremer is on parole now.

thank you Rich in PA, did it ever occur to you that Obama is winning and will win the primary? Clinton isn't and won't. Also, stop the disenfranchising talk. You don't even know what the word means.

Marsha, if this is over why is the Obama campaign continuing to go after Clinton on a daily basis. If it were over, he should be ignoring her, just as he did Gravel. Inconsistency there.

oh
and

disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some PRIVILEGE or immunity

Thanks for playing; here's a Bill Richardson endorsement as a lovely parting gift.

Thank you Rich in PA, I am so glad you have the help of an adult to copy and paste for you. Now, explain why the Michigan and Florida primaries were legitimate in the first place. Failing that, explain why counting their results would not disenfranchise the many voters who did not turn out for a primary they had been told would not count.

Richardson's endorsement isn't the only one by a superdelegate contrary to the state vote. Both Kerry and Kennedy support Obama, but HRC won Mass.
Calm down, Marsha, Obama has the led so why worry?

oooh, marsha, burn!(bored now)

talking about the do-overs (thought that would have been obvious)

He was one of the factors beneath the collapse of a 2nd FL primary and is the ONLY one blocking the MI redo.

Hmm; let's see: voter intimidation at the caucuses, preventing do-overs, now calling the thing "over" and asking for Super D's to end this thing before a state primary he's expected to lose BIG...the Obama message may be unity, but his campaign strategy seems to be to suppress opposition votes.

And if the Democratic party manages to nominate someone who appears this afraid of actual democracy, the repubs will have a field day with it in November.

To the adult typing for "Thank you Rich in PA", please don't let your little boy stay up late. He gets over-excited and talks about things he just doesn't understand. He seems to be confusing Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama, and I hope you can raise his awareness a little.

Richardson's endorsement isn't the only one by a superdelegate contrary to the state vote. Both Kerry and Kennedy support Obama, but HRC won Mass.

So pledged delegates are alloted proportionately to votes, but superdelegates from each state are obliged to follow the majority.

Is this just the latest mid-game rule change in Hillary Clinton's game of electoral Calvinball?

We oughta put the goalposts on wheels.

Thanks Easter Bunny!
For marsha.
She gives me the giggles.

"The mystery is why the party's elders, and a critical mass of superdelegates, haven't stepped in to stop it."

The difference is only a few %, which is not decisive. Based on the polling in the states left, Clinton will close the margin somewhat. At the end of the primaries, you will probably have a very close tally, with uncounted votes in Florida and Michigan that could give Clinton the edge.

If the superdelegates thought Obama was a shoo-in in November, they might rush to call it, but we all know he is problematical as a general election candidate.

Are Marsha and 'Thank you...' the same person, or merely two trolls working in tandem?

apparently, some people think 'Democracy' means 'Electing Hillary Clinton at all costs'

I would suggest they purchase a dictionary.

If it was Clinton ahead by 170 delegates, states and vote and Obama was trailing like Clinton is. Then there would be a howl scream by the party and the media for him to drop out.
Instead they prod along, in their make believe world of smoke and mirrors and waiting for a miracle. The process is unfair to Obama.

"If it was Clinton ahead by 170 delegates, states and vote and Obama was trailing like Clinton is. Then there would be a howl scream by the party and the media for him to drop out."

Apparently know one really understands the history of the party. And I don't mean ancient history, I am talking about 1980, 1984.

"Instead they prod along, in their make believe world of smoke and mirrors and waiting for a miracle. The process is unfair to Obama."

How terrible ... screw the Democrats in Florida and Michigan but by all means it should be all about what is best for Obama.