Judging by the remarks on TalkLeft, you're seeing a lot of things like: "KO is teh stupid. He is sekust and in the tank for Obama! I am now going to go cry, it so unfair!"

I didn't bother to check Taylor Marsh, but I'm guessing heads are still spinning at this point.

It's odd. The logic of this post is pretty clear. Don't the Clintons understand this too? If so, what is the plan? Even if Obama doesn't do very well in upcoming primaries, he'll still probably hold onto the pledged delegate lead. The only thing that I can think of is that they think that a Clinton-Obama ticket will keep the peace in the party. But I wouldn't be too sure that Obama agrees to that - it doesn't seem like a great career move and it might be better for the party in the long run if he is kept in reserve to run sometime in the future without being tied to the fate of the Clinton campaign or Presidency.

obscure--
You really shouldn't skip ol' Taylor. Apparently the only one left on MSNBC who speaks the truth is Pat Buchanan. And then there are 438 comments about how great Ferrraro is and how payback will be a bitch for Olbermann.

I'm so glad I'm in the Obama cult, instead of one of those clear-eyed Hillary supporters.

The only way to make up the distance is to sprint like mad. But if you sprint, you won't have the wind to finish. So what do you do?

You lose.

"To break with the pledged delegates will require a powerful rationale and a strong belief that the Democratic Party will survive, and indeed be strengthened, by the elites overturning the results of the primaries."

Of course, if as seems likely, Clinton wins the popular vote while Obama wins the caucus delegate count, the convention would only be "overturning the results of the primaries" if they decided to nominate Obama in defiance of the will of the popular vote.

General Electric won't talk about the popular vote because the candidate of General Electric seems likely to lose the popular vote.

But just because they're ignoring the popular vote doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

And if you think the convention is going to overturn the winner of the primaries because three thousand upscale goo-goos in Wyoming came out for Obama, you've been watching too much General Electric.

thank you for posting this, ezra.

kudoes to keith olbermann for speaking out.
justice has been served.
.....over the past few days, i have not understood how members of the democratic party, such as john edwards, al gore, joe biden, catherine sibelius have stood by silently without condemnation, tolerating this in the democratic party.
bill bradley, alone, has had the courage to speak out on some of this.
not one television commentator has spoken out, as patrick buchanan,james carville and others try to spin gold out of hate and prejudice.
the tactics of the clinton campaign have been anti-american in the deepest sense, and all for the self-serving sake of winning at any cost.
thank you, keith olbermann, for expressing the outrage that so many of us are feeling tonight.

Was that last post from Petey a real one or somebody hijacking his handle? I can't tell anymore.

It's pretty apparent that the plan is to damage Obama as much as possible, with the hope that superdelegates See The Light and come back to Hillary.

It's not rational, but that's the obvious plan.

Look for lots of leaks of Obama-damaging stuff, especially to Drudge and Fox News, too, I bet. The Ferraro farrago is just another in long string of party-damaging BS we're expected to put up with.

The telltale spinelessness of the Democratic establishment will let this go on interminably.

You lose.

Defeatist! You stay the course.

Petey wrote: "Of course, if as seems likely, Clinton wins the popular vote while Obama wins the caucus delegate count,"

I sure trust the analysis of Mark Schmitt more than you Petey. And he says on this very website that it's extremely unlikely that HRC will overtake Obama in popular vote, much less pledged delegates.

Not that it'll matter to Hillary, she'll keep up her schtick regardless.

My understanding is that the popular vote doesn't look likely to swing towards Clinton. Can anyone link to a credible analysis outlining how that proves untrue?

On the popular vote, this Mark Schmitt analysis makes a Clinton win seem vanishingly unlikely.

KO never spoke out aganst MSNBC for disinviting Kucinich to the debate, so I'm over his selective, manufactured outrage.

They're like a runner who's dropped behind in a marathon. The only way to make up the distance is to sprint like mad. But if you sprint, you won't have the wind to finish. So what do you do?

Well, if you're the Clinton campaign you pull out a gun and shoot the runner in the lead.

While the cops are watching.

"My understanding is that the popular vote doesn't look likely to swing towards Clinton. Can anyone link to a credible analysis outlining how that proves untrue?"

Clinton is currently 70,000 votes behind Obama.

If Obama can hold Clinton's margin under 70,000 in Pennsylvania, he'll deserve the nomination. But likely he won't, and Clinton will retake the popular vote lead at that point.

The rest of the calendar is favorable to her.

-----

"I sure trust the analysis of Mark Schmitt more than you Petey."

Then your conclusions will be wrong more often than they're right.

There was also this post by kos on the topic. Since it was before the MS primary, you should add 100K to Obama's differential.

The only way to make up the distance is to sprint like mad. But if you sprint, you won't have the wind to finish. So what do you do?

You lose.

I would have said "fake leg cramps and drop out of the race" but your answer works too.

Oy...I almost forgot why I stopped visiting this place. Thanks for reminding me.

OK, definitely the real Petey...

...so Petey, from where did you pull that 70K number?

And I'll also note that Team Obama is making the exact same mistake with Ferraro as Team Clinton made in SC.

Team Clinton decided to try to disqualify Obama's expected win in SC by trying to paint him as Jesse Jackson. But, of course, Obama isn't Jesse Jackson, and people could see that, so they ended with a nasty backlash.

Now, Team Obama has decided to try to disqualify Clinton's expected win in PA by trying to paint her as George Wallace. But, of course, Clinton isn't George Wallace, and people can see that, so they're going to end up with a nasty backlash.

I think now we need to start talking about:

Clinton = Spoiler
Clinton = Nader

The rest of the calendar is favorable to her.

Well, no it's not.

And keep on insulting the rank and file caucus goers. We really LOVE that.

I know I'm gonna be THRILLEd to pony up and get behind Clinton after she finishes trashing the party and trashing so many voters.

"This is the Catch-22 of the Clinton campaign. They need the sort of momentum that can only come from destroying Obama."

Does anyone else get the sense that this is as far as the Clinton campaign's thinking goes? That they just aren't thinking about the ramifications of their strategy and have taken a "win now, worry about the damage later" attitude?

The Clintons come off as smart short-term tacticians who end up doing more harm than good in the long run because they never consider the consequences of their actions.

"...so Petey, from where did you pull that 70K number?"

It's what you get when you add up the election results.

I've always liked your contributions here Petey, but you're spinning furiously, and misleadingly. The basic vote currently stands at +700,000 for Obama. Add in Florida, to be nice, and it's +400,000. It's only when you add in Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, that it drops to 80,000. But you know perfectly well that's meaningless, has no delegate implications, and won't be counted. Here are the numbers.

Also, as noted in that kos post I linked to, those RCP counts don't include the caucus votes from IA, NV, WA, and ME. If you add those in, you add another 100K to Obama's total.

"the telltale spinelessness of the democratic establishment will let this go on interminably."

it is time for the democratic leadership to have the courage to openly condemn these tactics. the clinton campaign is destroying principles that define the democratic party.
we were not the party of fear, paranoia and hatred.
they are undoing progress in this country that has taken years of struggle to accomplish.
more people need to speak out publicly...not just keith olbermann and bill bradley.

Ezra, I think it has been pretty clear for a long time that Petey has no interest in actually in any kind of good faith discussion.

You call it "spinning," I call it "bullshitting.:

So then the least Obama is down by, even including the completely bullshit results in Michigan, is 180,000? Alrighty then.

"But you know perfectly well that's meaningless, has no delegate implications, and won't be counted."

I think it goes without saying that popular vote totals have no "delegate implications". That's why the popular vote totals don't track the delegate totals. Clinton won the popular vote total in TX, for example, but "the elites overturned the results of the primariy", as you warned shouldn't happen.

And that 70,000 number is still the number that you get when you add up the votes cast.

On the same topic, I think the Obama campaign is being nutso in not helping to facilitate revotes in FL and MI. They're going to need to get their name on the ballot - in MI especially - at some point to cut down on Clinton's margin there. And the too clever by half position they're currently staking out of obstructing the revotes has some real potential to come back and bite them down the road.

"but you're spinning ... misleadingly"

I'm not sure why counting FL and MI is misleading in your book. They're going to be counted eventually, whether with a re-vote or in the current numbers.

Does anyone else get the sense that this is as far as the Clinton campaign's thinking goes? That they just aren't thinking about the ramifications of their strategy and have taken a "win now, worry about the damage later" attitude?

"So then the least Obama is down by, even including the completely bullshit results in Michigan, is 180,000? Alrighty then."

No. The last count I looked at (post-MS) shows Obama up by 70,000, not down by 180,000.

But as stated, PA is likely to put Clinton back on top, and the rest of the calendar doesn't look adverse for Clinton.

Even if Team Obama does wise up and we get a re-vote in FL and MI, I think Clinton is still likely to end up the overall popular vote winner, though it's far from certain.

"I'm not sure why counting FL and MI is misleading in your book. They're going to be counted eventually, whether with a re-vote or in the current numbers."

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. There was no campaign there or in Florida.

Hillary Clinton agreed --gave her word even, if that matters -- that results in Florida and Michigan would not count.

Harold Ickes, now on her team, signed off on the plan to refuse to count Florida and Michigan.

They won't count because Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Obama and the DNC said they wouldn't count.

If Hillary doesn't like that, she should have made her opinion known before she agreed to the rules.

I'm starting to think that there are all kinda of vows that Clintons choose not to honor.

Petey, please provide a cite for your numbers.

One hopes that this will have an impact. Regardless of who one supports, it is clear that the Clintons have been playing fast and loose with racial politics in this campaign, and unless her goal is to kneecap Obama for the general election it's hard to see how this helps her win as a Democrat.

I'm not quite sure I agree entirely with Olbermann, though. I don't think that Clinton has been running like a Republican. I've only been following politics for the past few years, but in recent years the GOP hasn't really stoked the racial flames all that much. I don't recall much in the way of racial polarization in the two Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004--wasn't trying to bring Blacks into the GOP fold a priority of Bush, Mehlman, etc., for a time? Sure, after Katrina that's not gonna happen, but aside from the periodic anti-immigrant scraps the GOP really hasn't done the racial politics thing in some time. At least, not on a level of which I have been aware.

Keith was too gentle on Hillary--she's actually playing racial polarization in a way that no Republican presidential contender has done in at least twenty years. Congrats, Clintons. Today's GOP comes out better than you do on racial politics.

the GOP really hasn't done the racial politics thing in some time. At least, not on a level of which I have been aware.

I happen to agree with Petey regarding the numbers. One of the reason I'm on the unity schtick is that given FL, PA (she currently holds minimally an 18 pt lead over Obama) and every state's actual vote (not delegate count) it's a strong possibility that we could end up with a split between delegate and popular vote. The question then becomes what do we do?

There are good arguments to be had on either side about which way to go. Certainly, after 2000, the popular vote is something that should be on all Democrats mind. Certainly, if Obama was able to get this many delegates through the process this can't be ignored either. And, then there are the demographics of their wins. Each has a compelling case as far as it goes. The reality is that whoever loses will represent 50 percent of the Democratic primary base. That's also a reality.

As people keep arguing that CLinton should give up, my thoughts are actually the opposite. That this is increasingly a sign of desperation by Obama supporters. Objectively speaking your argument simply isn't justified on the facts. At least not yet- when or if she loses the popular vote, you win. Until such time, you are trying to game the process because Obama can not win out right based on the pledged delegates (Ezra, Kos and many of you, if you are honest, know this). So what is the basis for him winning in a democratic (little "d" sense-- a bare lead of about 100 pledged delegates? The argument is a thin one. it's as thin as clinton's argument if she should lose the popular vote. She should leave the race if she loses that).

However, If she wins the popular vote, there is no reason for her to give up because Obama will not win without the super delegates, which means who then is really representing Democratic voters?

For that matter, how do we address Obama's position on FL and MI right now. I am a process person. I firmly believe that the previous votes shouldn't be counted, but I am also a believer in democracy so I believe they should have a do over so the voters aren't screwed by the stupidity of their elected officials.

Frankly, again after 2000, there is no progressive argue for the position that Obama is taking. None. Anyeone here trying to justify his position needs to take a serious look in the mirror at your moral compass.

Let me be clear- I don't like manipulation of process or voters. I don't acceptit. No more than I did when Clinton was trying to game the system in the fall of last year. It's really that simple. much of this indeed is simple if its guided by principles rather than candidate shilling.

The hard question however is not- what do we do if Obama has the delegate lead, and CLinton has the popular vote? What do we do when they are split evenly or near evenly -- because even if clinton has the poulart vote it wont be by much, and even if obama has the delegate vote it won't be by much. THe loser here will have the most delegates and votes of any loser in Democrat primary history. To me, whether they like each other or not- they need each other.

Why? Because I have one goal, and one goal only- kick McCain's ass.

I think it's clear what should happen, though I'm afraid it won't.

Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Gore, et al. should come together publicly and lead a chunk of uncommitted superdelegates in committing to Obama. This would effectively end the race. Clinton was given a chance to make a dent in Ohio and PA and she failed. Hence, the logical argument set forth by Ezra is unassailable.

It would be fine to let the race go on IF Clinton could be trusted to run her campaign in a decent way that didn't hurt the party. But that seems to be a non-starter.

How many superdelegates would be necessary to pull this off? 100? Maybe 150 to be safe?

Thank you for running this. The big questions I keep asking myself are how much damage is Senator Clinton doing to the Democrats in this campaign? And how progressive are Democrats really, if so many superdelegates would continue to support Clinton in a campaign this divisive?

Personally, I am not a committed Democrat. My concerns with political corruption are too great. I will vote third party if I believe the candidate to be too comfortable with lying to the public , voting to satisy funders, or destroying our public discourse to win. And in this election, with campaign-finace-reform-end-pork McCain, I would feel much more comfortable voting for him than Senator Clinton. If

My guess is that there are plenty of millenials, who are new to politics, who would do the same; plenty of African Americans who would sit this one out (alternatively, I believ Cynthia McKinney may now be the Green Party nominee); plenty of swing voters wanting to vote for integrity who would choose McCain. No one is entitled to anyone else's vote simply because they vote the right way more often than. Decency, integrity, the ability to inspire, bring people together, and raise our public discourse all count as well.

This is too tribal for Gore or any other guy to tip the scales it has to be Pelosi and Obama's running mate has to be Sebelius.

Anyone saying they are more comfortable with McCain given all the information about his ties to lobbists is at best ill informed, and more likely a troll given the fact this information is readily available. There are no longer any excuses in this day and age- especially if you could find this blog-- to post such an ignorance based analysis of Republicans versus the Democrats on corruption issues, and especially not of McCain. It's passing the point where any of you are redeemable beyond being total shills without any moral compass beyond this. So, you go right a head- vote for mr 100 years war, and vote also for the very corruption that you claim is your issue. By the way, I don't believe you are what you say you are, but whatever. This post has been written for the purpose of pretending that you are this ignorant about the candidates and who they are.

As it states very clearly on the RCL site:

Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals

So any discussion of who's ahead in popular vote is speculation at best.

"ties to lobbyists"
"without any moral compass"
"100 years war"

which candidate are you talking about?
oh, that's right, we cant be sure of corruption issues, since we havent seen the tax returns yet.

Hillary Clinton agreed --gave her word even, if that matters -- that results in Florida and Michigan would not count.

I must interject here. This is simply not true.

This is all so silly. Hillary Clinton will not be President in 2008. The only way she can get the nomination is to splinter the Party thus making the nomination useless in her hands. If a back room deal goes down that takes the nomination from the first would-be African American nominee, the Democratic Party will be dead as we know it for a generation. At least.

The Dems cannot win without Black votes and Black voters will abandon the Democratic Party in ways most couldn't imagine if Clinton steals this nomination through some sort of Super Delegate strategy. The Clinton supporters can ignore this if they want but thems the facts. Hillary under virtually no circumstance will be President in 2008.

" the only credible liberal anchor on television..."

perhaps among male "progressives." Olberman lost any credibility the minute Edwards dropped out.

Further, as long as folks like Olberman ignore the substance of Ferraro's remarks (that race-relations in America have made it virtually impossible to take a critical eye to the Obama candidacy), and, instead, wrap themselves in flags of righteous indignation, Ferraro will be proven right. You can't hope to change what you can't even discuss.

Where was Olberman's outrage when Obama himself was going after Clinton with sexist dog whistles to shore up white male vote? Where was Olberman when Obama's radio ads in Ohio were begging repubs to come vote his way?

I'd be interested in seeing what the popular vote looks like among registerd Democrats.

So, why is Petey not banned from posting for being a troll?

flh said: "Where was Olberman when Obama's radio ads in Ohio were begging repubs to come vote his way?"

Funny I live in Ohio's largest media market, listen to radio daily, and didn't hear that one.

And of course the evidence in Ohio is that it is Hillary that benefited from Republican cross over in Ohio as a result of the Rush effect.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/proof-rush-limbaugh-s-strategy-worked-in-ohio.aspx

Sorry, but adding Michigan to the vote total really does make one an ass arguing in bad faith.

If the Clintons start arguing they've won the popular vote by including Michigan, we'll know how truly desperate they are. I will never accept an argument that includes the Michigan "results". Nor will I accept a nominee who wins by including them.

I wonder if the people arguing that supers should decide this "as they please" (read: for Clinton) would still say if the supers actually decided now in favor of Obama.

Anyone saying they are more comfortable with McCain given all the information about his ties to lobbists is at best ill informed, and more likely a troll given the fact this information is readily available.

Not since Zell Miller gave the RNC keynote has one Democrat so glowingly campaigned for the Republican candidate. At least Zell wasn't running for office at the time.

Hmm. So maybe what Clinton is really doing is destroying Obama so she can then become Gore's vp at a brokered convention? That almost makes sense.

And in this election, with campaign-finace-reform-end-pork McCain, I would feel much more comfortable voting for him than Senator Clinton.

You misspelled "campaign-finance-reform-hope-people-forget-the-Keating-Five McCain." I assume that's what you meant, right?

I wouldn't mind a revote in Michigan and Florida, but I agree with Karmakin — it's completely dishonest to count the previous Michigan vote when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.

Petey, how is the Obama campaign "obstructing the revotes"? They aren't offering to finance them, if that's what you mean, but that's a use of the word "obstructing" I've never heard before.

Also, you do know the html to make links, right? (less-than sign)a href="Web site address here"(greater-than sign)text of link here(less-than sign)/a(greater-than sign). Try it, please.

Where was the 10 minutes craved out when Chris Matthews said Hillary was only where she was because her husband had cheated on her. Oberman can tell Hillary she is running like a Republican the day his ridiculous network stops acting like Fox news. MSNBC is a disgrace and Ezra is starting to be one as well.

As for the substance of Ms. Ferraro's comments, I am still amazed at the outrage coming from the idiots who support Obama. I would hope that America is excitied and energized by the prospect of a historic first in the Presidency. I hope most Americans are embarassed by the fact that we have had 43 white men as President. I hope they will take pride and joy is seeing barriers that are long overdue to be broken shattered. Those who attempt to deny the powerful appeal of these historic firsts are only playing into the hands of the Republicans. Their party would never have nominated a black man or a woman at this current time. I am proud that the Democrats would. That is one of the reasons I am a member of the party, because it is the type of party that would do that. We need to stop ignoring the importance of these historic firsts and starting embracing them for the momentous events they are. To totally factor out the possibility of these historic firsts, which is what we would have to do to claim that they have not been very helpful to both candidates, is to give the Republicans a huge advantage they don't deserve.

I think Ezra just answered the question of what percentage there was for the Obama campaign in denouncing Ferraro, since it is widely agreed that any focus on race ultimately helps Clinton with the voters. Clearly, it was a message aimed at the superdelegates - is this the kind of campaign you want to rally around even against the pledged delegates?

To be sure, Ferraro's comment was ridiculous, demeaning, and offensive, and the Obama campaign had every right to call her out on that bullshit. But they haven't always in the past (even in South Carolina, the official Obama campaign made almost no comment on most of the controversial statements, except for that single anonymous memo that was discovered). But I think Ezra just nailed the politics of it.

How, after Ferraro's comments, can the Clinton campaign credibly argue that the superdelegates can reverse the result of the primary process without triggering a massive rift between the party and African-American voters?

Just African-Americans?? Uh... or any other constituency that might care about this issue.

What if Obama were half Japanese? half Mexican? half Native American? etc... Wouldn't Ferraro have said the same thing?

Hey Anonymous,

So you don't think Ferraro's comments were a)racist, and b) dumb? And you think the only people who find them dumb and racist are Obama supporters? I'm surprised that you refuse to entertain the thought that, just maybe, the Clinton campaign is fallible, and, just maybe, they made a mistake. It seems to me that it's not the mistake, so much as the resistance to admitting the mistake, that has everyone (rightly) up in arms.

I've long said that I'll support any Democratic nominee running in 2008 against any of the Republican nominees...support enthusiastically, and support financially.

That said, the Clinton campaign's _repeated_ assertions that it would be "fair" to count the current Michigan and Florida primary results is REALLY getting on my nerves.

On what planet is a result 'fair' in which one candidate withdrew his name from the ballot?

I'm happy to agree that Michigan and Florida voters should get their say in a fair revote...and if Obama and his people are resisting that, they should stop.

But the existing results are NOT FAIR and everyone knows it. When a campaign repeatedly makes an assertion that violates the most elementary observations and common sense, it does not reflect well on them.

Listen up, Clinton folks!

i think after the past few days, hillary and bill clinton's campaign is in serious trouble.
i think that democratic leadership and super delegates have to be taking notice.
the ill will she is generating is becoming a real liability to the strength of the democratic party.
...it also isnt impossible to foresee some problems in the future with her effectiveness and continuation in the senate, with the right challenger down the road and the ill will she has generated.

>>KO never spoke out aganst MSNBC for disinviting Kucinich to the debate, so I'm over his selective, manufactured outrage.

Yeah, loyalty and the "integrity thing" are pretty hard for Clinton supporters to stomach.

Quite right, Jaqueline. It is painful for me, and I don't say it because I think it will sway people to support Obama (it won't), but I can no longer vote for Clinton under any circumstances. While I firmly believe in party unity, she doesn't really seem like a democrat. Moreover, I live in New York, and will be supporting her opponent in any democratic primary race for the senate, or voting green in the senate race if she's the candidate. She has lost me.

Ezra:

Obama is up ~800,000 when you include caucusers who came out to support him (and ignore TX caucusers, who all registered their support in the primaries). Even if you include the Florida straw-poll, that's still a healthy ~500,000K lead. As you said, the worst position he could possibly be in would be down ~180,000K, but that's including the Michigan Potemkin election. If Petey sobered up for a second and contemplated the absurdity of seriously suggesting we allow elections that exclude candidates from the ballot to matter (something they do in, like, Iran, for example), then I think he'd be with the rest of us who don't get RSS feeds on Hillaryis44.com in believing that those #s shouldn't even be counted in popular vote totals anymore than, say, a Rasmussen survey of Michigan should. Even if it has a real low MOE!!!

So yeah. I've been saying this since the Potomac Primary, personally, and of course been accused of being some irrational Obama supporter who just needs to shut up and stop acting to entitled about it all when I pointed out that the math didn't work for Clinton, she's not gonna catch him on any meaningful metric, her only path to victory is to kick up dust and while everyone is confused damage Obama as much as possible, etc etc.

She's had a full month now to do that. To waste all our time when we could be in the middle of the GE, Obama could be spending McCain into the ground, etc etc.

Instead, we're having debates about whether or not an election of Hillary v Kucinich should count.

Ugh.

Dean, Gore, et al: It's time.

At least Nancy Pelosi, as far as I can tell, gets that.

"As for the substance of Ms. Ferraro's comments, I am still amazed at the outrage coming from the idiots who support Obama. I would hope that America is excitied and energized by the prospect of a historic first in the Presidency."

I am surprised at people who don't get this. No one is complaining that Ferraro pointed out that Obama has benefited from being a historic first, or even her point that people unfairly promote an African-American historic first over a female historic first. The issue is her framing "Obama wouldn't be here if he was white". What could possibly be the meaning of that bizarre counterfactual other than to demean Obama and imply that he is nothing special, just a black novelty act. And it was no slip of the tongue, as she has said it at least twice that we know of, and said a similar thing about Jesse Jackson.

Her comparison to herself as being chosen for being a woman is also extermely offensive. As she readily admits, she was picked because Mondale wanted to make history by picking a woman. The implication is that the millions of people who voted and caucused and donated to Obama voters are only interested in his being black. You can believe that many people feel good about being part of helping a historic first without diminishing his candidacy by reducing it to his race. The guy drew 15000 people to a Democratic primary rally in Idaho! And she thinks that's the same thing as Mondale picking her because she was a woman.

Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Gore, et al. should come together publicly and lead a chunk of uncommitted superdelegates in committing to Obama.

Edwards isn't a superdelegate.

Hillary under virtually no circumstance will be President in 2008.

Since George Bush's term doesn't end till January 20, 2009, and Senator Clinton isn't in the line of succession, there's absolutely no chance of her being President in 2008.

we have had 43 white men as President

Actually, only 42.

Calling KO Credible? that's a stretch. He's been an Obama surrogate for a while.

When Ferraro says he wouldn't be here if he weren't African American, it's doesn't demean him. It's a mirror reflecting on many of the posters here. If you agree with the idea that identity politics has heavily influenced decision making (whether race or gender), as I do, then I don't see her comments as racists because I understand now, more than I ever have, just how many problems progressives have with looking at themselves in the mirror on these issues. I am African American by the way. Supposedly, she also said similar of herself when she ran as Vice President. She also supposedly, since I am not following this, said this not as a dog whistle but in some tiny paper that was picked up not by the mainstream press, but by Daily Kos. The news would not have reported it but for the spin cycle on that site. In other words, if this were a dog whistle, that a damn odd way to do it.

By the way, reading the posts on racism, it seems the faux pas in this primary season seems to be pointing out the obvious. I have friends, and they aren't alone so please don't insult me by posting this kind of rebuttal, that voted for Obama because all things being equal, they wanted to vote for the black guy. In other words, they saw little substantive differences between Clinton or Obama. And, not being bat shit crazy like some of you here were able to be real about why they voted for him. On the one hand it bothered me, but ont he other hand I did appreciate their honesty. Some of it maybe my closeness with them that allowed them to open up to be honest rather than have this display of public deception that pervades our ability to discuss identity politics on the left.

What do you do? There's nothing you can do, except accept the inevitable and bow out gracefully. (Or, since the "gracefully" ship has sailed, just leave.)

Cyrus

Re - The Revote.

The Obama campaign has been using legal threats and surrogates to try to block any/or manipulate the re vote. Indeed, take FL, where they were trying to do a vote by mail (which I am not certain I agree with, but at least they would be trying) Obama made overtures that he was against it. Now, ironically enough, again if this info is true, he wasn't against bill calling for voting by mail that went through the legislative process. Apparently he's against one in FL. Look, let me make myself clear - I don't think Clinton is a great choice, but I look at Obama, and I look at the pestal people have put him on, and I honestly think many are fooling themselves if they think they are getting something different. His record and behavior simply doesn't reflect what people are saying. THere is a strong dissonance between the two.

OT: To those of you who repost anonymously- do you honestly think numbers are going to make your argument more valid on a blog? This isn't daily kos.

The thing I never understood about Ferraro's comments is that if you take them at face value it demeans Hillary's candidacy even more than Obama's. Hillary would not only be a novelty for being a woman, she would be an even greater novelty for being a former First Lady. Her accomplishments are even less than Obama's once you take out her First Lady standing since she would not even be a Senator without the name recognition she got from the 90s. What did she do in elective office prior to her Senate election? Nil.
Ferraro's comments only make sense otherwise in the idea that Hillary is more senior and its her turn or that a woman deserves to be president before an African-American.

"i think after the past few days, hillary and bill clinton's campaign is in serious trouble"

LOL
and the Barack and Michelle Obama campaign? hows's that one hangin'?

Every white person from Ferraro's era (and after) was raised in a racist world. Like most Democrats of her era Ferraro has tried hard to grow pass this, to speak out against racism and move the ball forward.
But then she finds herself in the position of having to reconcile herself with the fact that her candidate is losing and she falls back on the republican talking point of preferential treatment. It's an argument she would find offensive in any other circumstance.
Via TPM Ferraro December 2006:
"All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage," said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, "It’s easier — emphatically so."

Since George Bush's term doesn't end till January 20, 2009, and Senator Clinton isn't in the line of succession, there's absolutely no chance of her being President in 2008.

Well, Bush might appoint her to some position, and then everyone might die, and she become president. Alternately, Robert Byrd might die, Clinton might be chosen as the new president pro tempore instead of Teddy Kennedy, and then everyone might die. All incredibly unlikely, of course, but theoretically possible.

And Jesus Christ what a hack Petey is. Does he really think we're not going to notice that his numbers require us to include a Michigan election where Obama got 0 votes? Basically, Petey's position seems to be that if Obama wins the pledged delegates by ~150 delegates, and also wins the popular vote in the aggregation of the 49 states (+DC and territories) where his name was on the ballot, the superdelegates should give the nomination to Clinton because she won a beauty contest primary in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot.

How does this even pass the laugh test?

akaison

the clinton campaign is imploding.

for many of us, al gore was our first choice. as time went on and the process winnowed, we came to know barack obama and appreciate his brilliance, dignity, sensibilities....and realized that he is the one most ready to be entrusted to be commander in chief.

believe it or not, akaison, we like him for who he is as a human being.

i believe the democratic leadership sees the internal damage that has been done to the party by the clinton campaign....and there is much mending to be done...and a general election to begin engaging in.

barack obama has lots of work to do.
hop on to the train. we are getting ready to pull out of the station.

and thank you again,keith olbermann and bill bradley for speaking out,in case you are reading this.

No one is complaining that Ferraro pointed out that Obama has benefited from being a historic first, or even her point that people unfairly promote an African-American historic first over a female historic first. What could possibly be the meaning of that bizarre counterfactual other than to demean Obama and imply that he is nothing special, just a black novelty act. The implication is that the millions of people who voted and caucused and donated to Obama voters are only interested in his being black. You can believe that many people feel good about being part of helping a historic first without diminishing his candidacy by reducing it to his race.

In a country where people might lie to pollsters about voting against a Black candidate to avoid seeming racist, and then actually vote for the Caucasian opponent, her claims are disingenuous at best.

How does this even pass the laugh test?

It doesn't. Trashing the nomination process, defending Ferraro when she's donning the bedsheets, all but endorsing McCain for President... And yet, somehow, we're all supposed to rally behind Hillary. Only in the Hillary-based community, I guess.

The Obama campaign has been using legal threats and surrogates to try to block any/or manipulate the re vote.

I was not aware of that. Yeah, looks like a dumb move on his part.

When Ferraro says he wouldn't be here if he weren't African American, it's doesn't demean him. It's a mirror reflecting on many of the posters here.

I agree with you that Ferraro's remark wasn't originally intended as a dog whistle. I also agree that at certain specific times in his career, being black has helped him. But overall? I have a hard time believing it.

And what she said echoes lots of reactionary complaints from the right wing about reverse racism and affirmative action. The same thing could be said about almost any black man or woman elected to high office or attending a good college unless they have a uniquely outstanding record beforehand. And then, in defending her original remarks, instead of acknowledging that what she said could have been misunderstood, she said, "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

I don't think this shows that Ferraro is personally racist and I don't think it was a secret plot to get some message out there. But I do she should have known better to say something that could have come from Rush Limbaugh. Given that it was a spur of the moment, off-the-cuff comment, saying it was totally understandable, but instead of apologizing she dug herself in deeper. You don't have to put Obama on a pedestal to consider her remarks a faux pas, at least.

a) Ricky,

that's exactly the problem this cycle. Too much of its been id politics, and not in the healthy way. Yes, her comments cut across Clinton as much as Obama- which is rather why it doesn't seem as calculated as others here claim. Indeed, she has made the same comments about her selection.

b) Jac,

I don't really care about the spin online about what's happening with the Clinton campaign. You maybe right. You may be wrong. My analysis isn't ultimately about the Clintons. Obama or any of other cults of personalities that you here like to follow. It's about my values.

Also, you may want to remember your postings from week to week- I do. I remember the diaries on race and what you said there. It's one of the failings of my memory that I am un-American in that I actually remember beyond the heat of the moment.

PS-- according to the polls, thank god, many of the crackpots now posting on here about how they will never vote for Clinton, or Obama do not represent the most of the American people. Those people who say that are fools. You can spin your cult of personality behavior however you want- but the fact is you still will be supporting the GOP and everything that's happened in the last 8 years. You talk about blood on the hands- there is no greater amount than a fool voting for that.

akaison.....

i believe the only comment i made regarding race, was that a good friend of mine who happens to be african-american, initally expressed great pride and excitement in the campaign of barack obama, and to see that expression of happiness, made me happy too.
there was agreement and also, delight.
i dont know what other statements you could be referring to, although i suppose anything is open to interpretation.

Cyrus

I agree how she said it was wrong. I agree that she isn't the poster child for my position that id politics has obscured our ability to have a real conversation about who should lead this country. BUT, her overall thesis about the effects of id politics on voters shouldn't be ignored. I don't care if the conservatives will try to use this or that they misconscrue this conversation into their own warped frame. They are going to do that regardless. That doesn't mean we should deny the conversation or pretend as if we have had this conversation (some are now telling me this) when we haven't. It's a matter of not repeating the mistakes that ultimately hurt people. Id politics, by the way, helps all candidates- white, black, Chrstian, gay, and it hurts them. Here, the problem has been the glossing over of people sentiments such that if I ask my basic question "Would you vote for the same candidate were he white?" is treated as sacrilege. I've been called racist for asking that question. Ignoring race and its impact on how we think seems to be a big way to continue the harmful impact. I don't see 'progressive' denial as any better than conservative warped thinking or denial. We don't live in a color blind society, and we need to talk about these things. if for no other reason, than to innocolate us come the general election.

Oh, and yes, i was a little surprised at Obama's behavior re the voting in FL and MI. People put this guy up on a pesdestal- I mean read jac's post among others here , and really when you look behind the curtain, the wizzard really is just another politician. I would be less concerned about his appeal if there weren't this blind adoration about him. I could at least by assured there would be account

PS-- according to the polls, thank god, many of the crackpots now posting on here about how they will never vote for Clinton, or Obama do not represent the most of the American people. Those people who say that are fools.

I think it's unfair to say they support the GOP (unless they vote for McCain; I'm talking about people who say they won't vote or whatever), but this, I can agree with completely. 80 percent of the differences between Hillary and Obama are mountains made out of molehills.

I won't be supporting the GOP. But I won't be supporting Clinton either. I'll vote Gravel.

Akaison,

Look, at a certain we have to regain our moral compass. No need to bring Obama into this at all. Clinton has convinced me, as she has Ezra, that she places the pursuit of power above integrity. Yes, she has some good policies, without question. But it reminds me of the war in Iraq. There were some good arguments for going into Iraq, relating to deposing a vicious dictator. But those arguments didn't reflect the administrations deep reasons for prosecuting the war. In the same way, a candidate's motivation matters to how effective he or she will be in office. Sadly for us former supporters, it is now unmistakable that Clinton places the pursuit of power above the responsible exercise of that power. For that reason she has disqualified herself, in my mind, as a credible candidate.

You're quite right that those of us who feel this way remain a minority. But our numbers are growing.

I can't wait for the general election. Is Obama going to argue John McCain is not qualified to be commander in chief? That is what Obama supporters are critcizing Clinton for not doing. Sounds alot like swift boating to me. Anyone who wants to claim Obama is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than McCain needs to get their head examined. McCain's policies are simply wrong for the country inspite of his stellar credentials. That is why you shouldn't vote for him, not because of these personal attacks Obama and his malicious follwers engage in.

Obama and his supporters are the most vile and disgusting people I have ever witnessed in politics. They claim the Clintons are racist, and that McCain is not qualified to be commander in chief. And now McCain is a flip flopper according to Obama, unlike Saint Barack who was against the war except every time there was a vote in the Senate when he voted the opposite way of the true war opponents like Feingold.

Obama continues to play the race card dividing this party. It may win you votes in South Carolina, but it doesn't seem to play well in Pennsylvania and Ohio. But of course the media's explanation of is that the voters of Ohio and Pennsylvania who don't vote for Obama because of his shameless race baiting and exploitation of race are racist, but when 90% of African Americans vote for Obama it has nothing to do with race. When you call Bill and Hillary Clinton racist, did you really think that was going to go over well with white middle class voters. Obama will have serious problems in the fall when the right starts to defend the Clinton's against him for their own perverse purposes. It is already starting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Many Americans would take pride and joy in seeing the first African American president elected. Calling them racist for having that sentiment is a sure fire way to cause them to overlook that factor and vote for someone else. Shamelessly exploiting race to your advantage and demonizing others who have long supporter the interests of all Americans is another. You cannot villify the Clintons without their being a backlash. First it will come from the Democrats who are loyal to them, and then worse the Republicans will jump on the bandwagon and protray you as a shameless monster who will do anything to win. You will have out Clintoned the Clintons according to them, and then it will be open season on you. We will hear how you will do anything to get what you want- get champions of the civil rights movement kicked off the ballot so you can get in the state Senate, get your indicted friend's wife to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to help you get your expensive house, tell foreign leaders one thing and the American people something else. This general election is going to get so ugly it is going to make the Clinton years look like a day in the park. Obama's won't be able to play the race card any more, it will just seem like the boy who cried wolf. Even if he wins the narative will become that he lied his way into the White House, and every time he tries to push something progressive through he will be accused of breaking his plegde to work together and bring about unity. Most of you should save your vile for the general election, you are going to need it and badly.

"obama and his supporters are the most vile and disgusting people i have ever witnessed in politics."

modern times?
or does that include back into the reaches of ancient history also?

Alex,

You are so stuck in your momentary emotions (trust me I understand the impulse) that you ignore who McCain is. Good luck with that blood on your hands:

"McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080312/pl_bloomberg/apzut4blweek

Neither of the two Democrats are as bad as this. It's this simple. Anyone not voting for the Democrat or favoring the GOP who is doing this claiming to be "progressive" needs to have their moral compass checked for repair. Stop with the cult of personality, and start with the reality of what you will be letting through the door of WH all in the name of your short term emotional b.s. I love how you claim to care about Iraq, but substantively both Obama and Clinton have similar plans. I love how you claim to care about the issue, but will allow Mr 100 Years war through the door. The dissonance isn't something that reasonable people can ignore.

That many of you don't probably know what's in that article that I just linked you to is why you fail in your duties as an American voter. If Clinton isn't up for the job of president, then many of you are n't up for the hard job of living in a democracy and researching who you ae supporting outside of rhectoric.

You should know these things. It's like the poster saying McCain is better on corruption and finance. It's pure ignorance that drives your analysis. It's realy that simple.

oh god- now we can't the crazy clinton supporters coming here too. i was happy with just the crazy Obama supporters. Look Obama isn't a bad choice either. This silliness has got to stop. Obama supporters aren't vile. SOme of them are incredibly naive and ignorant, but not vile. You disagree with them. You can question their moral compass when they are willing to allow Obama to do the exact same acts as others without question, but I don't think of them as "evil." What they are, are like other supporters- following their political leader. Clinton supporters do the same. What I am advocating is going beyond this. THink about this is real term. Not the kind that blogs tend to create or the MSM.

Clinton is aligning herself with McCain, old guard establishment politicos. They are intent on destroying Obama and preventing the popular movement he represents from slicing into their prerogatives. Its obvious that the Clintons are not into party building, and has been for years now. They are in it for the power - like McCain - not for The People. If Obama can wheather this assault, he deserves to be the Executive. I'll guess we'll see, and I'm sure it will be most painful to watch.

Witnessed implied that which one has seen. I was not alive in ancient times, though in the fanatasy world in which Obama supporters seem to live that may be possible, it is not actually. I am willing to admitt there may be people who have been far worse in my lifetime, but not while I was an avid follower of politics and would have witnessed it.

Ezra: How, after Ferraro's comments, can the Clinton campaign credibly argue that the superdelegates can reverse the result of the primary process without triggering a massive rift between the party and African-American voters?

Reality: They (have) will trigger a massive rift between the candidate (Clinton) and any liberal/progessive voter that thinks this tactic stinks like vomit and won't support anyone in the Dem. party who employs the tactic.

Just to respond to all those who are saying "I can't respect Olbermann because he didn't call out MSNBC on (X) or (Y)"...

I think Keith made his position clear when, just after the Imus controversy, he said (quoting partner Dan Patrick) that, though he had opinions about things within the network, "It's not my week to run the company". You can consider this a wuss position if you like, but I don't think it's incumbent on a person to trash his place of employment, nor do I think refraining from doing that makes him incapable of expressing on opinion on anything else.

As for the Clinton/Obama debate, I'll stay out of it, thanks. (Except to say, come on -- no one can seriously argue Michigan's Soviet-ballot should be taken at face value)

The only way to make up the distance is to sprint like mad. But if you sprint, you won't have the wind to finish. So what do you do?

{cough} Rosie Ruiz {cough}

Who you gonna trust? The old woman with cancer or the guy in the $5,000.00 suit? I mean cmon!

Obama chose to take his name off the Michigan ballot. It was a completely political move as he was under no obligation to do so. Obama hoped this action would help him win votes with the provincials in Iowa or at the least embarrass Clinton.
Also remember the Conyers' ads designed to increase voter turnout for non-committed that mentioned Obama by name.

Michigan's election was a joke but this was part of Obama's strategy to discredit the results. His supporters appear naive of disingenuous when they ignore the facts.
I have no problem with counting the vote as is, re-voting, or not counting the vote at all but none of the options are sacred or profane.

'They need the sort of momentum that can only come from destroying Obama.'

Ezra willfully ignoring reality, once again.

There is another possibility that you should not ignore. There is the possibility that endless repetition does not make a proposition true. Although "many" Democratic lawmakers may accept the proposition that Obama can draw more votes in swing states, "many" others may not. The establishment media and the blogging left have adopted as their credo that only Obama is bringing in new voters, and that Obama stands for "change." That this dogma has caught on with the voters only partially is, according to them, caused by the ignorance of those voters. And, since polling information is available only in the most conventional categories of "demographics," it really is impossible to know, prior to the election, what kinds of voters are influenced by what forces.

The only thing that is clear is that Hillary Clinton's voters are numerous enough that Obama never can get more than a few points ahead. And if the glow should wear off of Senator Obama's starpower, if for whatever reason he should cease to appear as the the hot ticket the media loves to love, we would still be left with a viable candidate with a huge following among voters.

Another item of current dogma is that Senator Obama stands for a "higher" form of politics, and that Senator Clinton has recently begun a nasty negative attack. Well, for anyone willing to hear, Obama has been delivering snarky, sexist "dog whistle" comments about Clinton since February 2007, when he announced his candidacy. That "the claws come out" when she criticized his positions, that she had one of her "mood swings" when she criticized his vagueness. But when he stepped up the snark, to a level that non-feminists could recognize she fought back, and that released the torrent of ranting about her "tactics."

The 3am commercial was not my cup of tea, but it was not fearmongering. It was a clear statement of the importance that a president have enough grounding in issues and politics to be an effective crisis manager. You know, experience. I would rather see ads that show an effective President as one who can anticipate, and probably avoid the 3am crisis. That is what I believe the super delegates should be considering.

I am holding out the hope that some superdelegates are very well in touch with the sources of Democratic Party strength in their areas, who have clear ideas of what qualities are needed in the President to be elected in 2008, and - based on their own knowledge and judgment - can conclude that Senator Clinton is a better candidate to nominate this year.

And one more thing: From the standpoint of VOTERS, Florida was a legitimate election straight up. Obama had national ads beamed at Florida, which Clinton did not. And nobody kept anybody off the ballot in Michigan. Each candidate chose to remove his own name. The Edwards and Obama campaigns agreed to remove their names as a tactic to discredit the election when Clinton won. The "uncommitted" vote in the Michigan primary represented both Obama and Edwards votes.

I can't decide if I want to support Obama and be a sexist or support Hillary and be a racist...

Decisions, decisions.....

All things being equal, the historic first of the first female candidate would offset the historic first of the first black candidate. It's not like she's John Edwards. The fact that Obama has solidified nearly all black support while Clinton can only guarantee older white female support (unlike younger women, non-white non-Latino women, etc.) just shows one more political skill Obama has than Clinton. He's simply a better politician.

"The 3am commercial was not my cup of tea, but it was not fearmongering. It was a clear statement of the importance that a president have enough grounding in issues and politics to be an effective crisis manager. You know, experience. I would rather see ads that show an effective President as one who can anticipate, and probably avoid the 3am crisis. That is what I believe the super delegates should be considering."

You sound like you think Powell was just making a reasoned argument before the UN. She said the biggest challenge of her life was Lewinsky and she reacted by crying, screaming and being unable to breath. A terrorist attack is worse than your spouse cheating on you. She couldn't even be bothered to read the NIE, yet we're supposed to trust her in her bullshit scenario that looked like a home security system ad? You really think using that aesthetic isn't fearmongering? Were you working for the Giuliani campaign?

aikason: "Anyone saying they are more comfortable with McCain given all the information about his ties to lobbists is at best ill informed, and more likely a troll... There are no longer any excuses in this day and age- especially if you could find this blog-- to post such an ignorance based analysis of Republicans versus the Democrats on corruption issues, and especially not of McCain."

Well it is certainly true that the Republicans are the more corrupt of our two major parties. But Clinton is attempting to steal an election in her effort to change rules she agreed to, now that her agreement is no longer to her benefit. What's more, she is using racism to divide the electorate in her favor, just as our nation appeared to be making an historic leap in bridging the racial divide. On top of all of this, she has been willing to severely divide her own party, harming all of her own causes, in the long shot hope she would get elected. This from the woman who helped bring us one of the stupidest wars in our nation's history.

Yes, only an ignorant troll would suggest she is more corrupt than a politician who passed the most significant piece of campaign finance reform in our era, seeks to end pork barrel spending (which tends to bloat the military and transportation budgets perhaps most of all), and "repudiates" right wing talk show hosts for insulting his opponent and using his middle name. Drawing the out the opposition of his would be supporters, Jim Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter, you've got to give him credit for something - even as bomb, bomb, bomb Iran rings through our ears.

The point is that there are plenty of people, uncommitted to the Democratic party, but committed to some of its causes, who will draw these same conclusions, whether or not some of us think they ignorant.

I just happen to be one of those absurdities of nature who may find myself having to choose between Nader or McCain should Clinton be the nominee. One thing is for certain, I refuse to vote for someone who has attepted to steal an election and set racial groups against each other. Following 2 questionable Presidential elections, and 28 straight years of two names always on the Presidential ticket, this seems a principal we may all need to adopt in order to preserve our democracy.

Theo- I was in the process of writing a long note, and then, I realized, you really don't matter- so I deleted it. Basically, you are one of that 1 to 3 percent for which this is about whatever it's about, but not about values at all. I don't care about many times you claim it is. Your own words later betray your claims. You talk about as issues in a superficial way and make over the top claims about stole 'elections.' Which as an actual Democrat, I find insulting given 2000 when the GOP,t he people you are threatening to vote for, actually did steal a race. You did yourself no favors by comparing a vote for Nadar to one for McCain. It's absurd. It's just disrespect for progressive values, which as I said, i suspect you don't have, and are actually just a troll.

By the way, there is also this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iK-AonJ7KrNoGaEUdj6xsc3_8fmwD8VCS5E80

It's about Obama refusing to talk about his earmarks. Let be clear. I support either Obama or Clinton, because I think either is 100 times better than Mr McCain and keeping the GOP corruption machine in power under a new veneer. My issue here is the level to whish people are not holding him accountable for his prior actions, and more importantly, leaving openning for the GOP to use later, and even more importantly to reflect the will of all Democrats who voted this cycle. Half wants Obama. Half wants Clinton. i split the difference by arguing for a unity ticket.

akaison, it's hilarious that you call out Obama for being too centrist and not progressive enough, but then you call for everyone to join you in the middle in support of both Clinton and Obama. Sure, you can rationalize a way to put your self-identified progressivism ahead of other considerations. It's still logically inconsistent. Nor does your unwillingness to advocate one choice make your arguments more compelling or objective.

And for all your talk of supporting both candidates, you are far more vocal in your criticism of Obama.

There's also a critical problem with a unity ticket: one of them also has to be, ya know...president. Proposing a unity ticket offers no intrinsic means of resolving that dispute.

A unity ticket also presupposes that Clinton and Obama have complementary strengths and weaknesses. That's a spurious notion at best. It seems quite likely that the two of them on the same ticket works out to zero-sum, where their weaknesses cancel out each other's strengths and just provides that many more targets for the Republicans to attack. What evidence is there that their strengths will provide some sort of positive, synergistic effect when running together?

As for holding Obama accountable in a primary: seriously? You want his supporters to mainstream the criticism of him? That's a brilliant idea to suggest if you want to defeat McCain. The ads would look great in the fall. "Even Democrats think Obama's a shifty, cynical latte-liberal. Vote for the straight talker. Vote McCain."

There are fair criticsims against clinton. That she's a centrist versus what obama isn't one of them. Obama is centrism by another name. His proposals are almost exactly like hers, and in some cases more conservative. Most people off line don't have a problem with the concept of a unity ticket. Most like both candidates. That's your stuff. This will be my last post I think unless something new is said along this thread. ironically, one support above claims he will support Nader or McCain if Clinton is the nominee, but offers no real reason why he has such virulent support for Obama. Let me link to what a Nader supporter wrote on the subject of Obama's record:

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

I don't necessarily agree with everything he is saying, but I do think he is trying to actually guage the record that Obama has. At this point, it doesn't matter because it's not about records. It's about naratives. Your narrative trumps any facts that are counter to it. If you want understand how this works- look at McCain- multiple articles come out about the influence of lobbists in his campaign and corrupt acts, and yet polls say the majority believe McCain over the reports. Why? narrative.

The same is true here. This is why I am tilting ultimately against the wind. Most of this isn't based on who these candidate are or what they do. They can do the same exact actions, and be judged differently. Ther eare some who are honest above about this.

It's infuriating that someone would claim the mantle of 'popular vote' for Clinton... based on the results of a primary in which she was the only candidate on the ballot. Yeah, way to stand up for Millsian democracy there, petey.

Is that Petey of the Greater Tuna Humane Society?

why is a sports guy talking about the primary? when did organized sports become progressive?

Most people off line don't have a problem with the concept of a unity ticket. Most like both candidates. That's your stuff.

Nor does it address whether or not the Republicans would find it easier to rally against both of them, who have clear negatives, as opposed to one of them with a less-reviled VP with better complementary characteristics.

Well, when you manipulate the frame to pretend one will be better in the GE than the other- then sure. I guess you do have a point.

When you take out your bias, let's discuss reality. Yes, I am referring to the Democrats since we are nominating the Democratic nominee for President. Wow, crazy me for doing that.

I note the talking out of both sides of your mouth that I find amongst groups of Obama supporters. On the one hand, Clinton is to be reviled for attracting Republicans (according to one Obama supporter above) but now, when it suits another Obama supporter, she is to be reviled for not attracting Republicans. Which is it? Maybe you all need to discuss that amongst yourselves, and get back to me on that .

Back to the delusion that Obama won't be as tarred and feathered in the GE. Here's a clue. I am black. He's black. He will be tarred and feathered on race. In some parts of this country that aren't Democratic primaries, that's going to hurt him. I don't care if that's not PC. It's reality. Your argument depends on my pretending that your delusion about this reality isn't true. This country hasn't gotten over its race problem, and nor will it by the time of the GE.

There are also several time bombs that can go off for Obama- Rezo (or whatever his name is), the earmarks issue that I link to above, his centrist posturing (also linked to above). So, your GE argument is false, but again this is narrative now for you, so you won't understand.

My thesis is that the reality is that we need to unify the base. The base of the Democratic party right now is split 50/50, and that base really likes both candidates despite being split about which one they like best.

It is only online and amongst a small subset of offline support that you see this irrational ferency for one over the other that endangers Democrats winning in Nov. The value of unity is that we bring the voters or some of them that both Clinton and Obama has brought to the table for the first time to the GE voting pool.

That's an attempt at an unbiased, talk about only half the facts, analysis of the situation.

aikason: "ironically, one supporter above claims he will support Nader or McCain if Clinton is the nominee, but offers no real reason why he has such virulent support for Obama." Barring the multiple reasons mentioned above why I wouldn't vote for Clinton, there are numerous reasons to be zealous in support of Obama.

1. His positions on repealing the Bush taxes, emphasizing diplomacy, working for nuclear disarmament, providing a massive investment in alternative energy, and increasing college education, are all appealing. His foreign policy emphasis on diplomacy and his record is significantly different than Clinton's. And he has a history of passing and emphasizing ethics legislation, which is also different. But Clinton's fine on policy.

2. Obama knows how to bring people together to influence change. He can create a movement around the things he wishes to pass. And on top of that, he is skilled in building coalitions and not creating a backlash against his efforts. This is radically different than Clinton, and I believe, radically more effective.

3. Obama is appealing across the political spectrum. And I believe that because he seeks to make his arguments based on a consensus of shared values, he has the potential to significantly shift the center in American politics leftward.

4. Right wing hate show hosts are losing their popularity. Clinton would revive that popularity most likely, and we would continue to be subjected to their vitriol for another 4-8 years.

5. Obama represents a new generation which, depending how we divide up the years, is about twice the size of Gen X and our largest yet. Electing him brings them into my camp. According to numerous tests and surveys I have seen, this generation is intelligent, capable, communitarian, and expects to do great things. By mobilizing them around progressive causes, tremendous transformations may occur.

6. Obama's positions, speeches, and demeanor are integral to his political philosophy, clearly explicated in the Audacity of Hope. His baseline positions are basically progressive. However, there is a unique meta-theme running through his book. He recognizes that each of us must prioritize a multiplicity of values. Those who prioritize differently than him may not be looking at all he is looking at, but they often care, and their positions have value. This is so obvious to me, and so denied across the political spectrum, that his presence makes me feel much better about political participation.

7. U.S. Presidents known for the greatest speeches (Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan) have often achieved the most, moved people the most, and been recognized as the best Presidents - though I have not always liked them. Apart from when hate is desublimated, people tend to be most moved by political speeches when the speakers words match their actions, their faces match their words, and their lives accord with their philosophies. A tremendous power is unleashed when we see this. The appearance of such integrity is incredibly inspiring.

To hear this called empty appears absurd to me. And to read in blog after blog Obama supporters, who are critical of Hillary and yet civil to people in the debate, labeled as crazies, loonies, naive, trolls, and idiots, I have to wonder if this sort of discourse was unleashed by the Clinton campaign or if it is simply part of the political culture she comes from. Whatever the case, I want no part of it.

Theo Horesh

That's an attempt at an unbiased, talk about only half the facts, analysis of the situation.

when you manipulate the frame

Yes, I am referring to the Democrats since we are nominating the Democratic nominee for President.

On the one hand, Clinton is to be reviled for attracting Republicans (according to one Obama supporter above) but now, when it suits another Obama supporter, she is to be reviled for not attracting Republicans.

That being said, there is a clear difference between winning Republicans before McCain had the nomination and afterwards. The early Republicans cast a vote against their own party and are likely to do so again in the fall. The ones who followed Rush's advice are likely to be "Democrats for a day." Having voted for the candidate they feel is easiest to defeat they will happily vote for McCain in the fall.

There's no inconsistency in lauding one and criticizing the other.

Back to the delusion that Obama won't be as tarred and feathered in the GE.

So I ask: what's your point in talking about Obama's race? Clinton will be pilloried for being a woman, being an insider, and being a Clinton (read: another dynastic politician). A unity ticket with two candidates who are desirable GOP targets is not an optimal solution.

There are also several time bombs that can go off for Obama- Rezo [sic] (or whatever his name is), the earmarks issue that I link to above, his centrist posturing (also linked to above).

The base of the Democratic party right now is split 50/50, and that base really likes both candidates despite being split about which one they like best.

It is only online and amongst a small subset of offline support that you see this irrational ferency [sic] for one over the other that endangers Democrats winning in Nov.