Skip to main content

Forget the spin: the race is where it is. Clinton won Pennsylvania. The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

I was never a Clinton fan, in this campaign. I have previously stated my deep discomfort with the notion that the person most deserving of the Presidency of the United States just miraculously happens to be the person married to the last Democratic President of the United States; it smacks far too much of the usual intra-Washington narcissism, and carries the strong whiff of American monarchy, something already wafting through the air after the ridiculous rise of the Boy King. At the same time, however, there seems little value in debating whether Clinton should or should not leave the race. That is entirely up to Clinton, and any candidate with a mathematical chance -- even if slim -- of pulling out a win has every right to see the race through until that last fateful day. I don't buy the notion that the campaign is hurting the Democratic party: any election that generates this level of excitement among Democratic voters is hardly a bad thing.

What bothers me, however, is the increasingly insulting quality of the campaign and surrogate spin as each successive campaign day wears on. It is fine to celebrate a Pennsylvania win -- by all means, a victory is a victory, and a significant and hard-fought one at that -- but all I ask in politics is that the spinners of each camp try their best to not make it quite so obvious that they think the rest of us really are a spectacular new species of rubes, able to be led by the nose to whatever ridiculous and improbable conclusion would best benefit a particular camp.


Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be on the ropes, and Clinton would suddenly win a billion dollars, a pony, and the moon; attention must be paid. It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because it's more important to win the big population centers. And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.

Now, I'm all for surrogates talking up their candidate, assuming they don't insult my intelligence in the process. But with the ever-changing rules and subrules of Clintonball, my intelligence feels fairly insulted, at this point. There seems to be an ever-expanding list of rationales why the delegate counts in front of our faces don't actually matter, or don't actually exist, or are terribly misleading. There seems to be an ever-expanding list of supposedly devastating Obama faults, such as the supposed elitism of the black guy from Chicago (seriously?), and there is a cynical and mocking dismissal of political eloquence from a campaign that once counted the political eloquence of their former president as one of their greatest assets. People have muttered over the negative tone of the campaign of late: hell, go negative. It's about time the Democrats figured out how to competently go negative, even though so far they have only bothered to practice it against each other. More irritating is that the negative attacks presented are, well, stupid, and seem increasingly to be predicated on the notion that voters, the press, the pundits, and we political hangers-on are all idiots seeking to cling to the most shallow of accusations. The press and the pundits? OK, I'll give you that one. The rest of us, however, weren't born yesterday.


All the spin boils down to a simple truth: Clinton now has almost no chance of winning on the delegate count. Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear, it's not going to happen, so the Clinton campaign wants the superdelegates to overturn the primary and caucus results at the convention and appoint her the rightful winner, even though she is, at this point, clearly losing. That's going to be a tough sell, if all Clinton has to offer is one state's worth of "momentum" or the rather odd logic that, since Obama has supposedly not sufficiently proven his campaign viability by kicking her completely to the curb by now, the superdelegates should instead hitch their wagons to a candidate who has been proven to be less viable than him.

The problem is those arguments simply aren't credible. You can't spin away an insurmountable delegate disadvantage with declarations of mulligans or claims of an "electability" that hasn't been able to actually get you elected. And with the ongoing declarations of which states should and shouldn't count (Pennsylvania yes, North Carolina no, one half of Texas yes, one half of Texas no, etc.), Clinton surrogates are rapidly running out of states and people to dismiss or insult. It has been a very, very nasty habit of her campaign -- seemingly Mark Penn inspired, but expansively used by any number of surrogates.

If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine: she's got every right, according to the rules of the contest, to campaign for that. All I'm asking is for her surrogates to come up with rationales that aren't absurdly premised and/or dismissive of the electorate. Given that I can't think of any such non-absurd arguments, that may pose a problem.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:11 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  how many delegates (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, eddieb061345, redtex, MooseHB

    did she net?

    George Carlin: "There's a nice campaign slogan for ya. The public sucks, fuck HOPE. Fuck HOPE" Obama 2008

    by Ex Real Republican on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:12:57 AM PDT

  •  First rule of Clintonball: (50+ / 0-)

    Don't talk about Clintonball.

    There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your week. By the way, is there anyone here who knows how to run a government?

    by iconoclastic cat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:12:59 AM PDT

  •  Now, Michigan+Florida Loom LARGER (9+ / 0-)

    And you can bet there will be a HUGE fight to seat them for Hillary now.

    After all, those states "Matter".

    •  sorry, but they really do (9+ / 0-)

      Barack is not stupid enough to write off two major swing states--he can't afford to.  That is why Dean and Barack are going to seat them--probably with the 50/50 split.  that's just fine.  

      The goal here is winning the general election.

       

      The Seminole Democrat
      A blue voice calling from the deep red

      by SemDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:19:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In a few weeks they may not matter... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psnyder, MooseHB, hillgiant

      I know people are adament about following the rules. The problem is that the longer she can keep the narrative going, the longer we're not going to have a candidate. I'd rather decide something and be done with it, to remove this FUD.

      If Obama can do a predicted in the remaining states, FL and MI will not matter. Meaning, you can seat FL 70/30 and MI 60/40 and Obama will still be ahead in delegates.

      Superdelegates and popular vote are another matter. Honestly, I don't think they should be allowed under any compromise. They're the one who caused this. I SORT OF buy the argument that we should count the regular voters in some way, but I have no sympathy for Supers.

      Not sure how this impacts popular vote (which would be Clintons last stand on electability).

      •  Didn't she win FL by a little more than 50%? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MooseHB

        I know the rest of the votes were decided amongst the field; but how in the world could she claim more than the 50% by which she won?  

        If I'm wrong about that number, let me know.  

        •  True, I'm presenting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MooseHB, hillgiant

          The most advantageous scenario for HRC. I trying to project what will happen if the stars align on MI and FL. My research says she still loses.

        •  She got half (0+ / 0-)

          Obama got a third, Edwards got the last fat piece of the pie.

          So Clinton-Obama split five pieces of the pie, 3-2, or 60-40.

          Michigan is a toss-up in how a vote would go anytime between Feb. 5 and June 3.  Polls have consistently run even between the two since Super Tuesday.

          Go Hemp. Twilight Bark is nothing more than a gossip chain.

          by MooseHB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot!!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scrape

        I really can not see how HRC and her supporters can possibly make the argument that she won Michigan and therefore should have the majority of the Michigan delegates. OBAMA'S NAME WASN'T EVEN ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT!!! How is that fair??? You can't say you won a fair election in a state where the other candidate's name wasn't even on the freaking ballot!!!

        Geez.

        •  The argument is that.... (0+ / 0-)

          He didn't have to remove himself from the ballot and he made that strategic decision to improve his chances in IA. So he took the risk.

          My response is that you give up pawns during a chess game in order to win the bigger match. Its part of your strategy. So, if someone changes the rules 1/2 through the game and says pawn are now the same as queens, there's a fundamental unfairness to the match.

  •  the only argument left is "Obama's black!" (23+ / 0-)

    And their assumption that racism will play a great role in the general election to a Democratic loss.

    What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:14:37 AM PDT

  •  Hillary must show she can win the base (10+ / 0-)

    Which is why she must win North Carolina. If she loses North Carolina--a state with a heavy base presence--we can say that she's unelectable. An unhappy base=defeat.

    Obama/Casey, my personal dream ticket.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:14:37 AM PDT

  •  More voters picked Clinton than picked (5+ / 0-)

    Obama.  This time.  They decided to vote for her now and vote for him later.  Win/win.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:15:11 AM PDT

    •  not so optimistic (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, trinite, MooseHB

      Many of those Clinton supporters are currently telling pollsters they would not vote for Obama, just as many Obama supporters would not vote for Clinton. The negatives of both candidates have risen during the course of the primary season, and to me that's potentially a significant problem. I have no doubt that Obama is ultimately going to be the nominee but if Clinton fails to endorse him it could be a pyrrhic victory.

      •  She wouldn't dare! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, txdemfem, MooseHB, MA Voter

        Not endorse him. Her job will be to calm her supporters and get them to bury the hatchet.  If she doesn't the party will be ruined.  I am betting that the time between the convention and the election will allow everyone to focus and get onboard to elect a Democrat.  I have been wrong before and I could be wrong again, certainly.  I hope this is the way it pans out.

        "Do you want to tumble? Let's tumble." Stephen Colbert

        by tobendaro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:27:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Many of those people (8+ / 0-)
        are mouthing of to pollsters because the race is heated and they are passionate and angry. After reality hits them and they see that McCain is for endless war in Iraq, letting the economy get much worse, ignoring average people in favour of the ultra-wealthy, eliminating a woman's right to choose (a major issue for many of the women supporting Hillary), neglecting our veterans etc etc etc, they will cool off. A handful may opt not to vote or vote for nader but very very few will find McCain acceptable once they start looking at him and see what he really is.

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

        by anastasia p on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:30:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What if it's not McCain? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MooseHB, Amber6541

          What if the Republican convention comes to its senses and picks a younger more vibrant candidate?

          How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

          by hannah on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:37:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You mean the group that let W have a second term (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MooseHB

            despite such a horrible 1st term?  You are dreaming.  The only way that would happen is for McCain to die or become incapacitated.

            Always hold firmly to the thought that each one of us can do something to bring some portion of misery to an end. Author Unknown

            by Amber6541 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:42:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  See, you just answered your own objection. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MooseHB

              Incapacitation is funny; it can happen at the drop of a hat.  
              What me worry?  I've got great health care.  

              How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

              by hannah on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:00:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It won't happen because of different rules (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MooseHB

            The Republican nomination is decided because, unlike the Democrats, they have winner-take-all primaries and very few super delegates. Most of the candidates dropped out, and Huckabee who stayed in, was quickly mathematically eliminated.

          •  Still won't matter (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MooseHB

            Even if the Republican candidate is not McCain, it still won't matter.  The Republicans are not going to pick a progressive Republican.  So, whomever they pick, it will still be a neoCON.  Things aren't going to be getting better in this country soon and everything that is wrong with it will be placed on the shoulders of the Republicans.  

            If the Democrats play their cards right, it should be an easy win.  My fear is that Obama won't make it as a candidate either.  My fear as always been someone taking a shot at him in a crowded rally.  The fear isn't so great right now because he is still not the official candidate.  But once he is, there won't be a day that goes by where I won't fear for his life.

      •  I'm wondering (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, MooseHB

        if there's any real basis for believing that those "I won't vote for him/her" polls will translate into real votes in November.  The fact is, they are not a measure of how people will vote, they are a measure of how people say they will vote, and that is supercharged with passion for the candidates in this race.  Once their first choice is eliminated, I have little doubt most will join the right side to defeat McBush.

        When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

        by rb608 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:52:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Find one... (0+ / 0-)

        Find one Clinton supporter that has said that. I've never seen or heard that but from people like you. Show us one of them. Youtube counts. Otherwise, quit lying.

        •  It's in the polls (0+ / 0-)

          I will not link to something so easily found.

          That's why the Rhinoceros in the living room is unchained.

          Go Hemp. Twilight Bark is nothing more than a gossip chain.

          by MooseHB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  MSM channels have reported it many times... (0+ / 0-)

          not that their saying so makes it true, however.

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  All the white women Democrats over 45 (0+ / 0-)

          I know personally say they won't vote for Obama in the general. I'm worried about it, but time will tell if they come to their senses. At least they're not saying they'll vote for McCain.

          It's like some secret yaya thing they all know about. Makes me think the word spread somehow. Kinda like how every Black knows to stay away from Utah if at all possible.

  •  All sound and fury, signifying nothing (12+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to hang into the race, and will make it to North Carolina but no farther.

    The media is desperate to keep the horse race alive for ratings, but even they can't keep her campaign on life support forever.

    The old guard power-players who have all the microphones are desperate to pretend they still matter as much as they ever did, but the people are taking over the Democratic party and after that, the country.

    The media spin and the Clinton campaign propaganda are the death rattle of politics-as-usual in the Democratic party.  It will soon be followed by the last gasps of the Bush Republican machine.

    Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

    by Dallasdoc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:15:47 AM PDT

    •  She moves the goalposts and we go with her (12+ / 0-)

      How many times have all of us, (fill-in-the-blank) state is the end.  This is getting beyond old.

      "Hope" is the thing with feathers-that perches in the soul-and sings the tune without the words-and never stops-at all. Emily Dickinson

      by juslikagrzly on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NC won't finish her (7+ / 0-)

      She ought to know what's going to happen there by now.  She'll claim, after she loses, that she cut into Obama's lead there and lost by less than what "everyone" thought she'd lose by.

      Her strategy now has to be entirely aimed at Superdelegates.  She figures that somehow she can get enough of them if she stays in long enough, hoping that, somehow, Obama might make some critical blunder.

      She seems to think that she can "politic" her way out of the hole that she's in.  Heck, she might actually believe the crap that she's trying to sell.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's in the sudden death round (11+ / 0-)

        Obama's less than 300 delegates away, from what I heard this morning.  One more loss and the superdelegates are likely to administer the coup de grace.  Two weeks from now, even if she squeaks out a win in IN, North Carolina will negate all her gains in PA and we'll be that much closer to the finish line.  She's run out of playing field, and she hasn't closed his lead.

        Ben Smith from Politico put it best on this morning's awful Bill Press show:  She's like a football team that's 4-11 celebrating a late season win.  It's nice, but it won't get her into the playoffs.

        Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

        by Dallasdoc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:40:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it gives her time to destroy Obama (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gsbadj, fromdabak, MooseHB

          IMO her strategy is not to win the nomination this time.  She started plan B after super tuesday.  Plan B is to destroy Obama's character and any chances he has of winning in November, so that HRC can run again in 2012.  

          She doesn't need to win a single state to execute Plan B successfully.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, her loss in NC (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsbadj, MooseHB

        will be spun as evidence that AAs are racist, and that Obama cannot win the southern white voters that (according to her campaign)have become the MOST important voting block for the Democrats in a national election. She'll get a lot of the white vote here, prob. most of it.

        •  There will be plenty of excuses... (0+ / 0-)

          ... including that NC doesn't matter.

          As for Obama not winning southern white voters... put it this way, his chances in the South are WAY better than hers.

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

          by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  5 million dollars (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, MooseHB

      is why she's still in this race.  She needs to stay in long enough and do well enough to get enough donations to pay herself back that $5 million.

      When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

      by rb608 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:54:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So now Clinton wins popular vote counting MI+FL (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    juslikagrzly, DrWolfy

    Those two states do get to vote in the general election--so now she can claim momentum and stay in until August.

    I don't think she will be dropping out anytime soon, so I am hoping one day soon we can turn our attention to John McSame.

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:16:02 AM PDT

    •  except ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gsbadj, mayim, MingPicket, MooseHB

      Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI .. so you can't count that .... unless you give Obama every "Uncommitted" vote .. and if you do that ... he's still ahead I bet

    •  Here's the real problem: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stitchmd, smeesq, MooseHB

      According to electoral-vote.com:

      98% of the Clinton voters said they would be satisfied only if Clinton were the nominee and 97% of the Obama voters said it's Obama or nothing

      .

      That is the biggest hurdle we have for the general election.

      The Seminole Democrat
      A blue voice calling from the deep red

      by SemDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The sooner this ends (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SemDem, MooseHB, Amber6541

        the sooner we can get to working on healing that rift.

        I would like to see us in a world without fear.

        by MingPicket on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:34:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think its irreparable. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SemDem

          And party leaders, all of them, not just Dr. Dean, have let it get to that point.

          •  No, HRC forced it to that point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WobegoneGirl, 417els

            don't try to blame Dean for something HRC has done.  He doesn't have the power to stop the Clintons, nor do any other party leaders.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:35:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  HRC is to blame, of course. (0+ / 0-)

              But the failure of leaders to speak boldly and publicly about the negative attacks allowed HRC to continue and gin up the destructive attacks, and the media allowed it go on without comment bec. no one in the party spoke out against it. She should have been censored (or whatever the party does to members who act unethically) when she said that Obama was not fit to be C in C, but McCain was.

              But I agree, the Clinton's are unstoppable, which is always the case I think when someone chooses to make it a zero sum game.  Its kind of like trying to fight a suicide bomber.  However, I do not think HRC any longer wants the nomination THIS TIME, she knows she can't win without the Obama supporters and AA's, and she doesn't want to be a loser. She is now just working to ruin Obama's electability, so he loses in the general election.  She'll run again in '12.

    •  Can't count them (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, MooseHB, Amber6541

      I know it sounds like a fantasy to have a vote without campaigning, but the FL vote was invalid.  The candidates didn't campaign, and the voters knew to some extent that the vote wouldn't count.  Given those circumstances, it's almost meaningless.  MI was obviously invalid.  People who say those votes should count towards something as-is should be slapped down, not least of them Hillary and staff.

    •  Honestly? We should give her Florida (and a mich (0+ / 0-)

      and a Michigan deal where Obama gets the uncommitted.
      I doubt she wants that though because she'd have no argument to parade after those deals were made about how Obama is blocking the votes.
      She'd only gain 30 or 40 delegates out of it, not many at all.
      Obama could take the high ground on it too.

      •  I'm torn (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neon Mama

        Magnanimity and class seem lost on Hillary and her voters.  They'd gladly take the delegates, spin it like mad to make it look like an ever closer race, and the media would lap it up and never mention that the votes were invalid or that Obama did the classy thing.  It would put the MI and FL issues to bed, but ten more would rise up to take their place.

  •  HEADLINE: OBAMA RAISES WAYYYY MORE THAN HRC! (8+ / 0-)

    Hillary is touting 2-3M raised last night.  Let's help Obama double or triple that!

    Every few bucks helps!

    Donate Here! Help Obama Win the PA Fundrace!

    •  probably 1.5 - 3 Million for the general election (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      paintitblue, Amber6541

      Peace Sells... But Who's Buy'n

      by peacemon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:18:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And yet (0+ / 0-)

      Despite all that money, Obama fell flat yesterday. If he had been outspent and lost, it wouldn't be so bad. But losing after outspending Hillary by 3 to 1 raises questions about the ultimate appeal of Obama in the general election. Money alone won't win this if it's not tied to the right candidate and message. Right now, Hillary's message is trumping Obama's money.

      •  Turn that argument over (10+ / 0-)

        she can't "close the deal" and that's why we're still here doing this over and over again.

        "Hope" is the thing with feathers-that perches in the soul-and sings the tune without the words-and never stops-at all. Emily Dickinson

        by juslikagrzly on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to admit (10+ / 0-)

          I have serious concerns over Hillary's ability to close the deal.  She has name reckignition and is married to a former President plus has over 100 million in the bank that she can use for this election, why can she not end this?

          I do not think she can beat McSame, and this concerns me.

          "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB

          by meatwad420 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:39:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  point is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YoGo, MA Voter

          they're in the same place.

          This is basically a 50-50 split. If both remain in the race, neither can win on the basis of pledged delegates alone.

          They will both have to make their cases to the supers. His argument will be winning more states, and (maybe) having an advantage in the popular vote, having the plurality of superdelegates (there are lots of ways to look at that, but I'm not going to go into that here.) Her argument is that she has won the big battleground states.

          Both arguments have their merits, both have their weaknesses.

          Whether you like the superdelegate process or not, and it is certainly open to a lot of criticism, the point of it was to give those with more "knowledge" or "experience" the prerogative to listen to those arguments and to decide on their vote, ostensibly with the best interests of the party at heart.

          Somehow, whatever happens, methinks the Democratic party is going to have some major rethinking about their nomination process.

          Civil marriage is a civil right.

          by stitchmd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:44:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  By the rules- the supers can vote how they like (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neon Mama

            the troubling thing is the Clinton team's need to make up their own rules after agreeing to the DNC rules before any contest had begun.

          •  It's a bogus argument (0+ / 0-)

            How is she going to take the big battleground states without the AA vote? If the SD's buy off on that argument, we have idiots as SD's. I don't believe that (at least not all of them.) If Hillary does convince the SD's that Obama isn't electable in the GE, they aren't going to give the nomination to her, who is doing worse than Obama by every other measure. They'd be looking for a third candidate.  Now maybe that is the Clinton strategy. Throw it to another candidate. But the Clinton's aren't altruistic, so if the big money wants them to field this destructive tactic, why isn't the money there?

            Nope, Hill thinks she can wrest this thing away from Obama. Her people are really delusional. The Tradmed is also smoking the same crack pipe (out of self-interest.)

            The Dem Party just isn't that stupid. We have another problem. Waffling indecision. How do we transplant a backbone to these people? What we need is for Dem leaders to start going on these damn programs and stating the truth. Obama needs to get his SD's out there, but we also need some backroom "uncommitted SD's" to make the same case. We need a concerted campaign to fight the media over this. Now. If there is one big weakness in Obama's campaign, it's marketing and framing the message. They need to shore this up fast.

      •  But Hillary winning a state by 9% where the (6+ / 0-)

        demographics heavily favor her doesn't help her cause either, especially when you consider that PA is the second oldest state in the US. Neither candidate can make a compelling argument looking at PA alone.

        I've always wanted to make a comment that ends with the word Mayonnaise

        by frankzappatista on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:31:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My stepson said (0+ / 0-)

        that 150,000 new registrations in Pa were republicans switching to dem.  I wonder how many did to vote Clinton and screw the results?  He saw it on cable news and I haven't checked the numbers my self yet.  If true, Obama was a lot closer with Democrats than these results show.  Also, many republicans will vote Obama in the general, I know quite a few.

        "Do you want to tumble? Let's tumble." Stephen Colbert

        by tobendaro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:32:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bull (14+ / 0-)
        Not only did he not "fall flat," but he slashed Hillary's expected margin of victory in a state custom-made for her, by more than half. Hillary's "message" fell flat, understandably, since her "message" for this part of the campaign was Cheneyesque fear-mongering and appeals to bigotry. The fact that she managed to win a state she was always expected to win by half the margin provies HIS appeal not hers. And in fact, money DOES impact on elections and Hillary doesn't have the resources for a full-scale general election battle, especially after she has essentially laid down for McCain and already announced she plans to let him kick her around on his favoured issues. She's already capitulated to McCain and has no ammo to attack him with unless she does a complete 180 in which case she'll be attacked as an unstable fip flopper.

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

        by anastasia p on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And yet (4+ / 0-)

        Despite the name recognition, the working class support, the support of women, and the twenty point lead she had going into the race, Hillary still couldn't match Mark Penn's projections and put Obama away by better than ten points.

        Why can't Hillary close this race?

      •  so the other 40+ states dont count? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WobegoneGirl, paintitblue, Annabella

        Obama "trumped" her in blue states won

        Obama "trumped" her in primaries won

        Obama "trumped" her in caucuses won

        Obama "trumped" her in pledged delegates won

        For all this talk of states we have to win, don't we have to win blue states? If Hillary can't beat Obama in blue states then how can she win in the GE?

        I also as a side note am tired of the meme the Clinton camp has pushed that Obama has not won any battleground states.

        Iowa? Wisconsin? Colorado? Missouri? Virginia? Those are purple states all.

        Minnesota is close to a purple state. Oregon and Washington weren't that far away from being purple states.

      •  Thanks for the HRC talking points... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sbdenmon, 417els, paintitblue

        It doesn't fly.

        Closing to a 9-10 point loss from a 20-30 point deficit says a lot about BOTH candidate's message.

        Try again.

        -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

        by DrWolfy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And thanks for the Obama talking points (0+ / 0-)

          Losing by 9-10 points after outspending Hillary by three to one AND having six weeks to personally campaign in this single state is hardly a triumph for Obama. If she had outspent Obama by that margin, you can be sure that Obama's supporters would be blaming his loss on that. So instead we get the nonsense that he lost because too many PA Democrats are closet racists and ignorant manipulated dupes. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that Hillary's economic message in these hard times resonated better than Obama's.

      •  2 to 1 (0+ / 0-)

        And it's not her message, it's her name and political machine.

        "Politics, a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Pierce

        by mentaldebris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:05:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  See (5+ / 0-)

        This is where I really do think Obama and Clinton camps diverge...

        It still feels like camp Clinton feels that Obama is a charlatan, due to be exposed at some point... that he's completely undeserving of winning this nomination.   There's a latent disrespect for Obama the man, Obama the skilled politician, etc.

        While there has no doubt been plenty of mud flung at Clinton from camp Obama -- I think you'd be hard-pressed to say the disrespect works both ways.  A lot of folks may not like Hillary Clinton  - or even hate her (I'm NOT among them) - but I think there's near universal respect for Hillary Clinton's skill as a politician.  We're not surprised simply because one does not "put away" a Clinton... one simply hangs on beats a Clinton.

        This isn't a "one game" championship -- it's a 48/50/50-whatever-if-you-count-territories-etc season.... and there are no playoffs.

        The simply fact of the matter is that Obama has won... that doesn't mean we need to cancel the rest of the season - we can play out the remaining contests - but at this point there is one certainly and another near certainty:

        1. It is CERTAIN that Obama will end the contests with a substantial (100+ -- if not 150+) pledged delegate lead.
        1. It is NEAR certain that Obama will end the contests with a measurable popular vote lead.... even with FL tossed into the mix.  She needed about a 400K popular vote win in PA in order to -- together with FL -- make a popular vote case.   She simply can't do it now.

        Forget all the metaphors... forget "putting away" Clinton.

        This contest comes down to winning... and Barack Obama is winning and looks like, after the remaining contests, assured of winning.  

        The rest is just parlor chatter and navel gazing.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:07:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Far from falling flat, he wil benefit far more (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        txdemfem, Annabella

        than Clinton from yesterday's result.

        Despite 35 years of experience near 100% name recognition and the fact that her opponent durvived a blitze of whithering bad press, Clinton lost half her lead in a state whose demographics strongly favor her.

        Plus, Obama did not have to outspend her 3:1. His campaign (rightly) predicted the outcome yesterday - it was not suprise. He spent like that to make HER spend. Spend herself dry. Which she did.

        HRC bankrupted her campaign to not lose a state that was a 20 point blowout for her only a month ago.

      •  She has the benefit of a two term President (0+ / 0-)

        as husband. Name recognition and brand loyalty not to mention Ed Rendell on her side. She had a home field advantage. And yes being able to raise money does matter. It matters allot.

        •  Yes, and he was popular (0+ / 0-)

          No doubt quite a few of those PA voters believe Hillary will be Bill part 3. How many times did voters say, "Things were good under Bill?" But 8 years after Bill left office, the terrain has changed. But people want to go back to their perceived good times.

    •  That amount doesn't even tough her debt balance (0+ / 0-)

      I forgot my mantra.

      by karenz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But if Obama gets eaten by a Bear... (12+ / 0-)

    ...That means Michelle Obama is the next qualified..

    Peace Sells... But Who's Buy'n

    by peacemon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:17:47 AM PDT

  •  Heard Lanny Davis this morning ... (10+ / 0-)

    he's the most egregious offender of what Hunter is talking about ... the guy can't stop his incessant whining ... about why Hillary should be anointed .. how he can't win big states ... and other garbage ... and Hillary is only winning by 8.6% .. not the 10 a lot of news reports are saying ... that's a lot less than the 19% she was up in the polls 6 weeks ago

  •  Get with the Program (11+ / 0-)

    All these appeals to Hillary to play nice and observe intra-party etiquette assume she WANTS a unified party.

    Obviously, at this point, she does not. She and Bill want to lead a breakaway party faction in hopes of future reconciliation under their unbroken control.

    That is the source of her newfound confidence. She knows exactly what she is doing and she does it with intent.

    So save the polite appeals. Please.

    We are witnessing the programmatic splitting of an American political party. Simple as that.

  •  Well, Yeah (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Rick Winrod, Amber6541

    "Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful."

    However, every campaign does this ...  The Obama campaign also tries very hard to shape perceptions of what each race means in each primary state.  This race means that "he has broken through with blue collar voters" and that race means that "he has proved himself as a credible candidate to African-Americans."

    What makes it different in Clinton's case is that representatives of her campaign do not publicly acknowledge what we all know to be true:  Obama will be the nominee.

    The fact that Clinton is staying in the race is both a boon and a problem for the Obama campaign.  Her presence has the powerful effect of completely distracting the media from carrying out its attacks on the Democratic front-runner, for example.

    Obama continues to enjoy a wonderful, sunny media holiday.

    On the other hand, it sure would be nice to have a nominee.

    •  To Extend This a Bit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978

      At this point in 2004, the GOP was already starting up efforts like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."  The first Swift Boat ads ran in May of that year.

      So, no ...  We can't coalesce around a nominee yet.

      But the GOP also cannot target a nominee either.

    •  Are you out of your mind? (6+ / 0-)

      Obama continues to enjoy a wonderful, sunny media holiday.

      If by media holiday you mean "WHITE PPL HATE OBAMY!!!1" 24/7 then you're dead on.

      I hope some historian gives Clinton her due.  Heres a title suggestion: "Hubris, Hillary, and How to Kill a Party"

    •  I think you missed the point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WobegoneGirl, paintitblue
      He didn't say that both campaigns weren't or should't be spinning, only that that spin shouldn't wander into the realm of the insulting or reality-challenged.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:39:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes and no (0+ / 0-)

      I do disagree with the statement "continues to enjoy a wonderful, sunny media holiday" --

      Over the past 2-3 weeks, I think the media has very much ended whatever love affair they had with Obama.   They've -- hook, line, and sinker -- starting riffing on 'elitist'.  

      I don't actually blame Clinton directly for that - I think it IS the inevitable of being the frontrunner.

      What I do believe - and we have only national polls, the rather silly tracking polls, and the fact that Obama remains atop the national delegate and popular vote counts -- not to mention still the 'frontrunner', if not 'presumptive nominee' -- is that Obama does appear to have something of a teflon like quality to him.

      I don't care what folks what to chalk it up to -- his skills as a politician, the media/opponents being unsure how to attack his weak spots, even baser claims about the media giving a black man a pass (i.e., the Ferraro line of thought) -- problems don't seem to stick to him, at least, not in substantial degrees.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:16:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  damn (9+ / 0-)

    I think I might be in love with Hunter.  I really enjoy reading your diaries.

  •  Good stuff (6+ / 0-)

    It is over.  She doesn't have a shot at getting enough delegates to win.

    But I disagree about continuing the contest being good for the party.  The level of debate is getting lower and lower.  The further into the gutter this goes, the worse both of them look and the more likely it is that the supporters of the loser will vote for the eventual candidate.

    At some point, HRC needs to wake up and think about the party.  Continuing her pursuit of an unwinnable candidacy does nothing good for a party that needs everything it can muster to win the general election.

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

    by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:19:13 AM PDT

  •  EXCELLENT!!! (9+ / 0-)

    Hunter,

    Just a simply awesome rant.  The term rant is not meant to be insulting.  Everything you wrote- well, you took the words that I've been feeling all morning.

    The simple absence of logic in this race not only boggles my mind, it absolutely does insult it.

    What you wrote should be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and read on the air on every television and radio station.

    Thanks!

  •  RE: LASTEST PA RESULTS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    juslikagrzly, karenz

    C 54.3%
    O 46.7
    PA WEBSITE

    http://www.electionreturns.state.pa....

  •  I don't agree that this is (12+ / 0-)

    not hurting the Democratic Party.  If these were polite, philosophical, policy based races I would agree.  You would then be creating party infrastructure, developing a voter base, but not entrenching bitter (excuse the word choice) divides.  That is NOT what is happening here.  This is ugly to a level that is rarely seen within the same party.  No matter what BO does to ultimately counter, HRC is responsible for the ugly nature of the race.  This is not good.  It dampens enthusiasm for the party even though it might raise enthusiasm for a particular candidate.  She has every right to continue, but the Democratic Party (to the extent that there is such a monolithic thing) needs to see that this must start to wind down.  

  •  Ain't nothing gonna breaka my stride (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, jds1978, paintitblue

    aint nothing go slow me down

    oh no

    i got to keep a moving

    OBAMA

  •  IT IS NOT OVER! (0+ / 0-)

    Look, if you don't like our system FINE, but Hillary is making a GREAT case why BO simply can't win the GE. This is the WHOLE REASON we have Super Ds. They should, and will step up and ensure a Democratic White House.

    •  Clinton can't win the GE because she won't be the (10+ / 0-)

      nominee.

      What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

      by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You remind me of Edwards supporters.... (11+ / 0-)

      who kept arguing that he was the best GE candidate when he couldn't even break 15% in a Democratic primary.

      I think you lose on every count. Clinton has made a GREAT case why she not only can't win the GE, she would make a mediocre president if she did.

      I agree, the SDs should and will step up to ensure a Democratic White House---by selecting Barack Obama.

      If William Ayers were a Republican...he'd have his own talk show on Fox News.

      by Azdak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton's great case against Obama? (2+ / 0-)

      That she lost half her lead in a state through the course of a campaign?  That means if they had tied in Pennsylvania, squandering her entire 20% lead.. her case against Obama would be air-tight!  That certainly explains her campaign strategy so far.

      if you don't like our system FINE

      You mean.. the system that includes caucuses, excluded Florida and Michigan from counting based on agreement from all parties, allows crossover voting in some states, includes Democrats in states unlikely to vote Democratic in the fall, and will have a winner based entirely on the delegate count, instead of a divine appointment for the anointed favorite?

    •  but Clinton isn't the only non-Obama option (4+ / 0-)

      you forget that, and if Obama is somehow proven "unelectable," it doesn't mean SuperDelegates have to settle for the other Democrat who has alienated about half of the party.

      In fact, if the signal is sent that Obama won't be the nominee, he will likely use his massive delegate advantage to hammer out a compromise plan with the remaining superdelegates, giving us Gore/Obama or Edwards/Obama.

      You're right, it's not over until we have a nominee, but at this point, I'd say Gore has a better shot than Clinton... and Obama is still the overwhelming favorite regardless.

      •  I love Al but he has less of a chance (0+ / 0-)

        in the general than Obama. The fact that the guy has not been campaigning actively also works against the Dems handing him the nomination. It makes no sense. Besides, Al is on record (like Hill) for supporting NAFTA. And make no mistake, the GOP would be a-OK with running against Gore.

        •  Obama should be the nominee (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WobegoneGirl, flight2q

          because he's working for it and is winning it (well, PA loss aside, but he did come from behind 20% deficits down to 9.3%), and he's overcoming obstacles being thrown by the rightwing and HRC to his electability fairly well so far.

          But, I disagree with your points.

          A very recent poll has shown Gore doing quite well vs McCain (beating him) and drawing strongly among independents.

          A Gore/Obama ticket should actually be unstoppable (I am not saying we should go that route, for reasons stated above) because of Obama's ability to bring new/young voters coupled with Gore's capacity to get most of HRC's voters that maybe disgruntled with Obama (as we're seeing in exit polls from OH, PA etc) and Gore's overall stature.

          "The fact that the guy has not been campaigning actively also works against the Dems handing him the nomination."

          I think Gore should be considered under extra-ordinary conditions only; as a backup designated hitter, if you will. He's about the only one that can pick up the ball and run at a moment's noitce (esp. given Obama's organization, assuming it's a Gore/Obama ticket) and have an excellent chance to win. Edwards has serious electability issues because of his dramatic flip-flops on the war and weakness of experience (two problems that Gore doesn't have); what sticks out in JRE's experience is his co-sponsorship of the war resolution.

          "Besides, Al is on record (like Hill) for supporting NAFTA."

          McCain supports NAFTA (Edwards also said that "NAFTA should exist" and he voted for China MFN) and then some and so that's not really a GE issue. But, nevertheless, Gore formulated ideas for and called for making trade deals fair (with better enforceable labor/env protections) and with the climate change issue being closely related to it, Gore would actually be best suited to reworking trade deals to make them fairer.

          "And make no mistake, the GOP would be a-OK with running against Gore."

          Having seen how rightwingers and GOP pundits have been trying to keep Gore bottled up, I think it's to the contrary. They'll try to attack him with lies as they did before, but this time it's different because we're here to help set the record straight on those lies.

          And, Gore has won the national popular vote (and the election counting FL) once.

          Rightful winner of the nomination race should be nominee (as long as he/she fairs well and stands to fair well vs McCain in the GE), but Gore would be our best "go to" option if things get messed up badly.

      •  I love it! (0+ / 0-)

        Someone should scare the Clinton camp with that prospect - or feed it to the dragons, I mean MSM.

        Be not afraid. Fear feeds the dragon.

        by mrobinson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:36:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dreamer (0+ / 0-)

        Obama is not the overwhelming favorite of anything. He's a loser, as he proved last night.

        http://www.rebelcentral.net/blog

        by HoneyToasted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:49:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A great case? (6+ / 0-)

      Let's hear it.

      Let's hear why the candidate trailing in popular vote, trailing in delegates, and trailing Obama by 45 million in funds, has a better shot against the republicans in November.

      I've always wanted to make a comment that ends with the word Mayonnaise

      by frankzappatista on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:37:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have the reason wrong. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aimeeinkc, sbdenmon

      It isn't that Obama can't win the general, it is continuing because the Democrats are looking at two good candidates the like of we haven't seen ever.  To complicate the matter, they are a black man and a white women, causing certain demographics to coalesce around each one. I suppose this is upsetting because we have never seen a close race before and we want an answer now, not later.  If the punditry was the least bit responsible, they would be talking about this more and how the system is working.  I have heard no one raise the point that two, old, fat, white men dueling it out doesn't happen.  

      "Do you want to tumble? Let's tumble." Stephen Colbert

      by tobendaro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:43:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton cannot (7+ / 0-)

      win a general election.  She has already alienated the most reliable Democratic demographic, AA voters.  She is loathed and despised by the right like no other human being on earth, and trust me on this; I've spent 18 months analyzing right wing blogs and such.

      She will not get independant voters.  She will not get young voters.  She will energize the Republicans to come out and vote against her in numbers not before seen.  

      BO can defeat McCain.  And there's that little fact that by the rules of the Democratic party, he's the leader.  He will be the nominee, and this crap from Hillary is doing immense harm to all of us in our united goal to defeat McCain.

      This is NOT about Hillary Clinton.  It's about those of us without jobs, without healthcare, about a foreign policy that is killing thousands.  It's way past time to unite behind the candidate who is going to be the nominee, the only nominee who has a good chance at winning the GE.  

    •  what is this "great case"? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snazzzybird, sherlyle, flight2q, TexasLiz
      So far she's flogged phony issues and trivia. I would like to hear this "great case." In fact, I think she's made a "great case" why SHE "simply can't win the GE." She has already burnished McCain's credentials as a strong leader, and agreed that strength, power and hawkishness will be the campaign issues, issues on which she automatically will lose to McCain, rather than issues such as the economy where she could trump him. She has so praised and publically respected him that for her to turn around now and attack him the way she'd have to to win will only make her look nutty and be seized upon by the Republians to undercut her. They'll run commercials with footage of Hillary saying that McCain has "passed the commander in chief threshold" and all the other many times she has publically praised him. Hillary has practically written their commercials! How will she ever take all that stuff back? There's no way she can out-hawk McCain and in trying to do so she will anger Democats and independents but never convert Republicans.

      And worse, I think you would see her new "friend" Richard Mellon Scaife turn around and throw the kitchen sink at her and make her look especially foolish, naive and weak in having trusted him.

      When Hillary started praising McCain over Obama, she was signalling that she is willing to give up general election victory in pursuit of the nomination. But she closed off her own road to victory in November.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:46:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely true. Clinton kneecapped herself (0+ / 0-)

        when she did this.  If she gets her way, and she's standing up there on the stage with McCain, and the question comes to experience, who's going to buy the idea that she has more than McCain??  
        Nobody.  
        Who's going to buy the idea that she knows more about military matters or foreign policy?  Nobody.  
        She screwed herself with her C-in-C threshold comments.  She has guaranteed that her supporters will feel so disappointed, so somehow cheated, when she inevitably loses the nomination, that a lot of them will have trouble supporting the one who is our nominee.  That's TERRIBLE judgment on the part of a candidate who certainly should know better.

    •  if that's true, then it's far from democratic... (0+ / 0-)

      ...so I guess we should stop crying about Bush in '00 & '04.  I'm going back to Nader...

    •  A great case? (0+ / 0-)

      Made by losing and being behind in every metric that matters?
      Lying and being willing to do anything to win?
      Yea a great case.
      She will turn off more voters in the general when the GOP aims at her instead of Obama. They want to run against her.

    •  Good luck (0+ / 0-)

      with that.

      Seriously.

      No one is stopping anyone from making that argument.

      I'd still take Obama in a bet -- even if you gave me 10 to 1 odds on Clinton  -- to win the nomination.

      You're gonna need something on the order of 75-80% superdelegates to win, and I just cannot envision such a scenario today -- and I certainly cannot envision it after Obama wins NC, OR - with other possible wins in SD, MT, and IN.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the counterspin. (5+ / 0-)

    The spin this morning is making me heave. I am so angry that the party is in civil war. Ugh.

    You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

    by dnamj on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:21:31 AM PDT

  •  Obama needs better surrogates. Real feisty ones. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, mentaldebris, applegal, redtex, Kyman

    the best so far are Chakah Fattah and ... I can't think of another surrogate who can hold his own against Mcauliffe and howlingwolf.

    Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt. William Shakespeare

    by notquitedelilah on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:13 AM PDT

  •  Oh GREAT, Hunter.. now you've done it. (13+ / 0-)

    Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear

    "Indiana authorities report that strange growling sounds, and the smell of salmon, are emanating from Clinton state campaign headquarters.  There has been no official explanation."

  •  It is not just spinning; rather, it is (11+ / 0-)

    incredibly insulting on so many levels.

    Georgia and Mississippi mattered, unless you think black democrats "don't matter."

    I'm older, and I can remember different times.  We've made progress.  I already knew that there were still Dixiecrats within the party.  What I didn't know is that there were still major party players that would imply or say outright that Dems in MS and so many other states "didn't matter."  

    It is so very hurtful to hear her surrogates use this language.

    The IMF is a loan shark, bill collector, and repo man all rolled into one.

    by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:21 AM PDT

  •  Why shouldn't she spin? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't like her, but if I were in her shoes I'd be spinning too.  If Obama fails to win North Carolina and Indiana, she has a viable argument that she's the stronger candidate, regardless of Obama's lead in delegates.  

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

    by Paleo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:38 AM PDT

    •  Why bother to have elections (7+ / 0-)

      in all 50 states then?

      Why don't we just decide ahead of time which states are important and let them pick the candidate?

      Or not have any elections at all. Just let the superdelegates choose for us.

      Would that be much worse than what the pundits are telling us - that lower educated and bigoted voters don't like Obama, so he shouldn't be our nominee? That people will still vote for the candidate they believe is untrustworthy?

      Honestly, I am so sick of our political system right now, I'd renounce my citizenship if moving to Canada or Europe was evenly remotely feasible.

      •  Yep I do not understand (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541

        how someone can say that a person is un-trustworthy, then vote for them?

        "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB

        by meatwad420 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:55:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agree/disagree (0+ / 0-)

        I agree the system sucks, but the way it's in place now, Obama can't get a majority w/o the supers.  If he goes on an extended losing streak at the end of the primary season, why shouldn't they factor that in making their selection.

        If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

        by Paleo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:30:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's not the spin, it's the insulting spin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541
      And yes, IF she were to win in Indiana and North Carolina (the latter wildly unlikely, although her Republican friends will be helping her), she could make the argument that she's the stronger candidate, although it would be undercut by the fact that she has no ammo against McCain; she already handing him her arms. But it won't matter if Obama still has a healthy delegate lead, for instance, if her wins in those two states were close nd the delegate allocation were a wash.

      But arguments about Obama correctly calling people brutalized by the economy "bitter" or trying to blow up Obama's passing aquaintance with Bill Ayres are not valid arguments. If Hillary thinks she won't be hit by far worse from the Republicans come the general election, she's dreaming. She'd hear every baseless smear trotted out in the 90s blown up a thousand times  -- and probably nought and paid for by her new buddy, Richard Mellon Scaife.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:53:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why indeed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paleo, RantNRaven, Amber6541

      ...shouldn't she spin?  She's in her electoral grave, after all.

    •  I wish she would "spin" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem, Amber6541

      herself right into the ground......I really am sick of her.  My teevee used to be in jeopardy only when Bu$hCo appeared on the screen....not so any more.  Lately I have taken to shoe-throwing at the very mention of the Clinton name.  Any Clinton.

      Whew!  I want this OVER.....NOW!  Two Weeks.  That's it.   Are you listening...NC and IN ???

      "What, Me Worry?"...King George Walker Alfred Eusless Newman Bush

      by RantNRaven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:28:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well said Hunter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, RantNRaven, Amber6541

    We're all sick and tired of these moving goal-posts, and spin.  In fact, the word "spin" nauseates me and I vow to never use it again.

    "Hope" is the thing with feathers-that perches in the soul-and sings the tune without the words-and never stops-at all. Emily Dickinson

    by juslikagrzly on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:23:11 AM PDT

  •  Not born yesterday? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    I'm starting to think a substantial portion of PA was born yesterday....  Clinton's negatives were way up, but a lot of them managed to hold their nose and pull the level for her.

  •  G-Steph was simply elated (6+ / 0-)

    on "Good Morning America."  Hillary's win was followed by the theme song, "I get knocked down/but I get up again" yada yada.  It was right up there with a hard-hitting report on "American Idol" singers damaging their voices - and the lady in FL who found a gator in the dining room.

  •  If the supers vote Clinton, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    iconoclastic cat, HighSticking, mayim

    Obama will fail to win the primary election. Ergo, the supers should vote Clinton because we cannot afford to send to November someone who fails to win the primary election.

    That's what the argument boils down to.

    -9.63, 0.00
    Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

    by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:24:01 AM PDT

  •  Oh no you didn't! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frankzappatista

    Did you just say "cling to the most shallow of accusations"? I demand that you reject and denounce the word "cling" immediately, you elitist!

  •  Total agreement (6+ / 0-)
    I was offended last night to receive an email from Hillary's cmapaign titled "A New Landscape" claiming her Pensylvania win had "transformed" the race.

    I'm also offended by the McClatchy story I just read, courtesy of TruthOut, spinning Hillary's Pennsylvania victory as basically a disaster for Obama since he SHOULD have somehow won to prove his worth as a candidate and a complete disaster for the now hopelessly riven Democratic party. It's almost liike some writers and pundits are giddy with glee at the prospect of the Democrats are hitting the wall and disintegrating again. All hail President McCain! Why both to campaign or vote? However, WE should not be buying into this. WE are not that dumb -- I hope.

    We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

    by anastasia p on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:24:47 AM PDT

  •  Calvinball vs. Clintonball (3+ / 0-)

    Calvinball seems less self-serving. (Unless you're a savvy babysitter.)

    Infighting is out.

    by dji on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:29 AM PDT

  •  The "Rules Laid Out in Advance?" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stitchmd, mayim

    It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count.

    The rules laid out in advance say there is only one meaningful statistic that determines who the Democratic nominee is... and that's the vote on our convention floor.  I tire of hearing about how Clinton isn't willing to follow "The rules," and then those same people demand that a SuperDelegates sacred duty is to vote however the people of their state voted unless they live in Massachusetts, Ohio, California, or now presumably Pennsylvania.

    And before I get called a scab or a Hillbot or a Shillary or whatever the ad hominem du jour is I support Obama, he gets my money and my vote, and I want him to win.  And I think he WILL win.  By the RULES LAID OUT IN ADVANCE.  Which say the winner is whoever gets a MAJORITY of the votes at the Democratic convention.  Any other definition is one of convenience of bias.

    •  So what, precisely, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541

      are we spending so much money on? I think it would be tremendously more efficient to call off these silly primary elections and put the money into education and healthcare. Think, too, of all of the lost productivity from people who have taken the day off from work for a completely meaningless, symbolic gesture.

      Such a waste, all of this mindless voting.

      -9.63, 0.00
      Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

      by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:30:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Primaries Choose The Pledged Delegates... (0+ / 0-)

        ...who go to the convention and vote.  How much time have you spent involved in Democratic politics without knowing that?

        •  I see. (0+ / 0-)

          Which say the winner is whoever gets a MAJORITY of the votes at the Democratic convention.  Any other definition is one of convenience of bias.

          So which is it? Are the delegates pledged, in which case Clinton has no chance, or is this convenience of bias and the only thing that matters or exists is what happens at the convention?

          You can't have it both ways. If there is no relationship between what these people do at the convention and the votes that were cast, then let's stop casting the votes and save ourselves the trouble.

          -9.63, 0.00
          Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

          by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Cannot Defend Comments I Never Made (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stitchmd

            It has nothing to do with pledged or unpleged.  Once they get to the convention, a delegate is a delegate.  I believe it is the PDs responsibility to follow whatever guidelines their state party gave them.  If the state party says, "You must stay with whoever you're pledged to through the first three ballots," or whatever, then they should do so.

            It is unclear to me how I'm supposedly "Having it both ways."  The winner is whoever gets the majority of the votes at our convention.  Full stop.  There is NO other criteria that determines our victor.  Hillary's bullshit about how she won "the big states" is just that: Bullshit.  As is Obama's bullshit about how many primaries/caucuses in a row he won.   Popular vote?  Bullshit.  Number of Pledged Delegates?  Bullshit.  Number of SuperDelegates?  Also bullshit.

            I am not having anything two ways.  I am saying there is one way, and only one way, to get our nomination.  That one way is to get a majority of delegates to vote for you at the convention.  Nobody has any business claiming victory until they have secured that majority.

            •  I believe the TITLE of your comment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Amber6541

              included the phrase

              The Primaries Choose The Pledged Delegates

              and you will note that I quoted you verbatim. In light of what you have just said, please consider my original proposal once more since you have apparently constructed for yourself a straw man and then knocked it down. If

              The winner is whoever gets the majority of the votes at our convention.  Full stop.  There is NO other criteria that determines our victor.

              then surely this semi-fictional "election" process is the most divisive and expensive possible method for organizing the convention.

              -9.63, 0.00
              Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

              by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:45:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is No Strawman Here (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stitchmd

                What you are saying makes no sense to me at all.  I have never said nor implied that Pledged Delegates were meaningless.  Indeed they are critical, and the primary election process is how we select them.  All I am saying is having the pledged delegate lead does not make one the nominee.  The only criteria that makes one the nominee is who gets a majority of votes at the convention.

                There is nothing I have said that contradicts anything else I have said.  If there is something you do not understand, ask and I will explain it.

                •  I did ask; that was the point of my post. (0+ / 0-)

                  You say that there is NO important criteria other than the the convention itself in selecting a candidate.

                  I am saying that if this is the case, if there is NO necessary relationship between the primary election and the choice that the delegates ultimately make, then surely holding an election is the most expensive possible way to select delegates.

                  If you continue to insist that an election is the right way to select delegates, then you must present some reason why this expense is justified.

                  If this justification is that there is meant to be some relationship between the outcome of the votes and the choice of the delegates (which you seem to want to imply but back away from any time it is made explicit, despite having used the term "pledged" yourself) then obviously there is some context beyond the convention and that context is the election.

                  Basically, either:

                  1. There is no intended or necessary relationship between the election and the convention, in which case the election is expensive nonsense, or
                  1. There is an intended or necessary relationship between the election and the convention, in which case disregarding the results of the election clearly upsets this intent

                  The voters clearly assume (2) at this point. If this is not the case, it is only fair to tell them and give them the choice to spend their time and money elsewhere.

                  -9.63, 0.00
                  Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

                  by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:54:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're Being Quite Silly (0+ / 0-)

                    Of course there is a relationship between the primary election and the choice the delegates ultimately make.  The primary process can (and in fact almost always DOES) make it a foregone conclusion who the delegates at the convention are going to select.  

                    You appear to be saying that at some point I said every delegate at the convention should just vote however they feel like.  Please reread my comments, I didn't.  I used the word "pledged" because as just about everyone here knows, an overwhelming majority of the delegates to our convention are "Pledged" delegates.  What that means actually varies by state.  In some states it means that those delegates "pledge" to vote for the candidate in question on the first ballot.  Some states it might be "every ballot," though I'm not sure about that.

                    All I have said (and is correct, no matter how many imaginary strawmen you accuse me of knocking down) is that the nominee is who gets the most votes at the convention.  And the fact that a RELATIONSHIP exists between the outcome of the primaries and the outcome of the nomination is not the same as saying there is a 1-1 relationship between the two.  Many people assume this, that's true.  But "the rules laid out in advance," do not.  Which is all my point has ever been.

                    Perhaps your flaw (one of them anyway) is that you think "relationships" must be absolute?  That in order for me to say that the number of pledged delegates is not relevant in determining the nominee, I must also be saying the result should ALWAYS go against the pledged delegates?

                    Of course I did not say that.  Keep re-reading.  You'll figure it out eventually.

                    •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rogrwilco

                      All I have said (and is correct, no matter how many imaginary strawmen you accuse me of knocking down) is that the nominee is who gets the most a majority of votes at the convention.

                    •  Once again you make the same set of claims (0+ / 0-)
                      1. There is a relationship
                      1. The rules say that there is no relationship

                      So, in essence, the relationship is a matter of coincidence or tradition at most, not a matter of rules. In which case, as I have said now several times, the election is a very expensive way to fill delegate slates, not to mention being a great way of creating the potential for angering the public needlessly.

                      So let's do away with it.

                      -9.63, 0.00
                      Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

                      by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12:25 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK I Think I've Got This (0+ / 0-)

                        My problem here I think is that I'm just talking to you like I would talk to anybody.  Let me lower the bar a couple notches and see if we can get anywhere.  I'll use a Sports analogy.  Let's talk American Football.

                        If you would take every game that has ever been played, you would find that the following things are all true:

                        - There is a relationship between which team has a higher rated quarterback and who wins.

                        - There is a relationship between which team usually "allows" less points on defense and who wins.

                        - There is a relationship between each teams overall win/loss record for the current season and who wins.

                        - There is a relationship between which team scores the most touchdowns during the season and who wins

                        OK now.  This is where it's going to get really tricky for you.

                        - NONE of these criteria have anything to do with who the "winner" of a Football game is.  The winner of a Football game is whoever has scored the most points at the end of the game (be it the fourth quarter or overtime).

                        Now by your logic, I've just made contradictory claims.  I assure you, I have not.  No matter how many Patriots fans felt "robbed" by the outcome of Super Bowl 42, they had no business saying, "Well actually we won, because we have a higher rated quarterback, a higher rated defense, a better season record, and scored more touchdowns during the season."

                        Why?  Because those criteria are completely meaningless when determining who wins a game and Patriot fans know and understand this.  They were the overwhelming favorites, but they still lost according to the criteria that determine the winner.

                        Barack Obama is in a similar situation.  He is clearly the overwhelming favorite for our nomination at this point based on numerous criteria which DO have a relationship to who our winner will be.

                        The big difference (in my mind anyway) is that Obama will win and the Patriots lost.  But what we see here at DailyKos (constantly) is that any outcome at this point that doesn't involve Obama winning is Clinton "Stealing" the election, or "the SuperDelegates thwarting the will of the people."  According to "the rules laid out in advance," this would not be the case.

                        And now that I've written an entire novel on a subject that a tiny child would have understood from my first post, I have to turn my attention to other things.  If you don't know of or understand American Football I suppose this won't help either.

                        •  Only this is not a football game. (0+ / 0-)

                          In democratic governance (or any governance), the continued stability of the government rests on its perceived legitimacy. This legitimacy is a function in democratic societies, especially where the claim is that of a "democratically elected" government, of the degree to which there is a clear relationship between the act of voting and the outcome.

                          There is clearly a strong tradition that the outcome of the election should match the outcome of the convention. The fact that people routinely talk about "the outcome of the election" and subsume under this rubric such actual events as the outcome of the convention or the outcome of the electoral college is evidence of this clear assumption on the part of the polity.

                          Your argument is to leverage the technicality of the law to eviscerate the tradition and precedent of the process. In so doing, you also eviscerate the basis for the claim on the part of the process that it is legitimate.

                          Your example is telling; you are indeed operating as though this is a contest, like a football game in which the only thing that matters is to determine and declare a winner, by whatever means is necessary.

                          In practice, this is the least of all concerns. The greatest concern is to establish both

                          1. A functioning government, and
                          1. legitimacy for this government amongst the populace, which in turn also supports (1) above

                          This is a train wreck precisely because the voters, in whom democratic sovereignty ultimately resides, have a different understanding of this process from the technical one that you describe. You may say that their understanding is flawed. I am suggesting that if you tell them this—if they vote under a certain set of assumptions about their actions and the outcome does not coincide with their intent in participation—then what you have done is spend a lot of money and a lot of time drawing attention to a process that itself is going to piss them off and destroy the legitimacy of the outcome, which in turn tremendously weakens the legitimacy of the system as a whole, not to mention systemic (as opposed to extrasystemic) participation in the future.

                          Better to save the money and not poke your finger in their eye in the first place. The American people seem happy with "declared realities" from the authority structure so if that is your intent, just do it. The best way to complicate this is to say "Here, America, is a choice... please take time and money from your day to pick." and then, once they have made their choice, to say, "Nyahh, nyahh, the powers that be will do what we want anyway, thanks for playing."

                          Your football game analogy is nonsense because your winning football team will not go on to negotiate the waters of international diplomacy and conflict in a nuclear age, nor will your football team have to go back to the public just a few short months later in order to do things like try to support tax increases to fund an ongoing war/withdrawal and/or to attempt to rescue a failing economy.

                          Your football team goes home at the end of the day; its object was merely to win. This government does not go home at the end of the day, and its object is not merely to "win according to technical rules."

                          The technical rules are written in the first place in the interest of sustaining legitimacy and popular sovereignty; it is not the other way around.

                          -9.63, 0.00
                          Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

                          by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:50:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  The rules of the SDs are..that there are no rules (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR, RantNRaven

      so lobbying them by whatever criteria you want to choose is--within the rules.

      Those who say that SDs should "follow" the will of the voters of their states are following the "rules" just as much as anyone else.

      I think it is a moot point because I think the SDs will look at the overall situation and decide that Obama is the best candidate, regardless of the criteria.

      If William Ayers were a Republican...he'd have his own talk show on Fox News.

      by Azdak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a Difference Between (0+ / 0-)

        ...opining as to what they SHOULD do, and openly asserting that if they DON'T do what you think they should, the election is being "Stolen" or "bought," which is essentially what I read here four hundred times a day.

        You are correct that a SuperDelegate who chooses such a criteria is following the rules, as is a SuperDelegate who flips a coin, and a SuperDelegate who evaluates the candidates based on who he or she thinks would make a better President and then votes for that one.

        •  Not much of a difference to me. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm missing the important distinction between the delegates not doing what they should do and "stolen".  Either way, if HRC wins the nom based on the bad judgment or malfeasance, I'm not going to feel bound by the result.

          You see, it's really not the superdelegates who get the last word.  It's not just HRC who gets to say that it's not over yet.  It's just not HRC who gets to say who is or is not pledged.  Everytime an HRC supporter, or HRC herself, informs me that there's no such thing as an obligation of a delegate to vote a certain way, I'm feeling less of an obligation to vote for her in the GE.  Because unlike HRC I never promised to support any sets of rules whatsoever, and if she says that all is fair and nobody owes me nothing, I'm going to return the favor.

          I imagine her as some sort of secret agent dodging bullets and then having professionalism to take media hit rather than reveal things she can't reveal.

          by Inland on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  it might be a moot point for this election (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541

        ...but I do hope that when the primary is over, Dean or someone does a little re-thinking of this stupid ass process.

    •  no, you're right, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR, brein, Amber6541

      this argument only points out that Clinton has virtually no shot at the nomination.

      At the convention floor, Clinton isn't the only anti-Obama option, and if there are still undecided supers who don't want Obama, Obama will simply use his delegate lead to hammer out a compromise candidate.

      So, in reality, I would say Al Gore and John Edwards now have a better shot at the nomination than Clinton.

      Keep in mind, delegates represent bargaining power at the convention, and Obama simply has more of them. If they don't go with the pledged delegate/popular vote leader, they're not going to go for a figure who has alienated the leader's supporters. They will go for a compromise that's acceptable to undecided Supers, likely whoever is preferred by Obama and would agree to take Obama on as VP.

  •  Bravo (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wrights, RantNRaven, mayim

    Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear, it's not going to happen...

    This imagery made me laugh.

    Right on, Hunter!! You have brought forth my inner common sense and put on display for the whole world to see without me putting in as much effort as you obviously have.

    Trust me when I say that Progressive Catholic Democrats Do Exist!

    by mselite on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:26 AM PDT

  •  But Hillary won Michigan and Florida. (11+ / 0-)

    Terry McAuliffe told me that last night on the teevee.  Looked me dead in the eye and said she won those states.  So there it is.

    I hope Hillary invites me to the inaugural.  Like, right next to the heating vent on the podium because it gets awful cold in January.  I certainly want to attend, but not if my tootsies are gonna get cold.  I'm not a barbarian.

    And another thing: "Og!"

    -

    "Judge me on the content of my character, not the underwear on my head."

    by Bill in Portland Maine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:27:10 AM PDT

  •  Obviously it's (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sbdenmon, mango, mayim, brein, Amber6541

    not about the delegates anymore, nor even the popular vote.  It's about presenting Obama as a "boutique" candidate who cannot win.

    There are a lot of superdelegates who, if they are desperately looking for an excuse not to support Obama, could find one in that.

    As for the experience issue: This is interesting to me.  My mom is a 77 year old white woman from Ellwood City PA (near the Ohio border).  Never mind that she's spent 49 years in Chicago.  She views it like this:  Hillary's experience is discounted in the same exact way all women of my mom's generation was discounted - they worked hard and often knew as much about the "man's job" as he did and helped him immensely but because they weren't front and center and were unpaid, they were brushed off.  To her, Hillary has a lot of experience.   I disagree, but more importantly, I explained to her that Hillary Clinton is the most polarizing political figure in the Democratic party and will energize the Republicans like none other.  In any case, she'll vote for Obama (she would not vote for a Republican at gunpoint, nor would she not vote).  But I think that Obama needs to be careful how he approaches this particular demographic.  

    •  Perhaps you're right (0+ / 0-)

      I know that it's the conventional wisdom here that "Hillary Clinton is the most polarizing political figure in the Democratic party and will energize the Republicans like none other." But I'm increasingly doubtful of that CW. Obama, with his Rev. Wright connection, his "clinging to guns and religion" comments, and his Hamas endorsement, is quickly becoming a very polarizing figure. Liberals adore him. Moderates and working class white voters are wary (as we've seen in the recent primaries). And conservatives are growing fearful of the change he promises to bring. I've heard many of my less-liberal friends say that they don't care much for Hillary but that they're afraid of Obama.

      Now that's not necessarily all bad news. This country needs a thorough shaking and Obama is the one most intent on making real change. So perhaps the conservatives' fear and the moderates' weariness is fully warranted. No one ever brought on a revolution by sitting on their hands and not offending anyone.  

    •  Your mom could be my mom (5+ / 0-)

      She pretty much feels the same way, and yes, it has to do with the feeling that the woman is always taking a back seat even though she's just as smart.  I actually think Hillary Clinton does not fit this mold, but she's getting the benefit of the ingrained experience of those who do, like my mother, who gave up a career in the same field as my father to stay home.  After years of being slighted they just want to see a woman being given credit.  It's almost impossible to talk to my mother about this.  It's so much more about her own life than it is about Hillary Clinton's qualities.

      I think that Obama has gone out of his way NOT to cast any aspersions at any voter group, and I wish his supporters would follow his example.  I usually jump in and try to stop people who start with the "spoiled old white women" meme.  

      •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, trinite, Amber6541

        there is a boatload
        of anger and resentment among a lot of women like our moms.  They have spent a lifetime being told their work was worthless and their intelligence sub-par and unimportant.  They are projecting as much on Hillary as some of us are projecting on Obama (I'm a socialist and to me, he looks like a pretty solid centrist, but I believe that he may be pushed into a position of real progress through sheer momentum).

  •  LMAO with Gen Clark on Morning Joe (5+ / 0-)

    He thinks Hillary is rolling out old foreign policy for her security umbrella in the ME.  The same once that was used for Russia.  A new arms race if you will for the benefit of the war profiteers.  It played well for the out of work rednecks in PA.  

    I can't help but wonder if all these old women Hillary supporters understand, they're vote for Hillary could end up killing tens of thousands of their grandchildren.

  •  STOP playing the game with Clintons Ball! (8+ / 0-)

    we need to wake up and realize that we can control what happens next.  We are Millions of OBAMA suporters, we are the activists, we are the ethnic wings, we are the youth vote, we are holding the cards the Democrats need to WIN in november...

    It is time for us to stop letting the SD's think that we will fold like cheap congressional democrats facing another demand from dubya.  we MUST find our backbones and stand together in telling the SD'ds we WILL walk if they give this to Hillary and the presidency be damned!

    It is NOT like there will be ANY Change if Hillary becomes President...   about the only thing that will change is the party delineation down on K-STREET.  I believe the SD's are still on the damn fence because they believe we WILL fold and we WILL vote for HILLARY no matter what she has said and what she has done.  They believe we dont have the guts to stand by our convictions....  they think WE WILL FOLD COME NOV....  so they sit on their fence waiting to see which way the DC wind is blowing before they decide which train to get on.

    well WE hold the power to make the change we seek.  OBAMA says it all the time... change does not happen from the top down.. it happens from the bottom UP.  The only thing standing in our way is US... are we strong enough to stand up for our principles and our desire to see REAL and substantive CHANGE by telling the DNC, The DSSC, The DCCC and the damn DLC that WE WILL NOT SUPPORT A HILLARY CANDIDACY no matter what.

    It is time to get off our own pots and open all of our windows and scream loud enough for the fence sitting SD's.... WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THIS CHIT and we aint gonna take it anymore!!!  If HRC becomes the nominee WE ARENT GOING TO SUPPORT HER...period.   do we have the guts to play hardball with the plutocracy wing of our own party.  Do we have the guts to make HRC answer for how she would WIN in noiv without the support of significant wings of our party?  Hillary is betting we dont...  is she right?

    "THE SURGE IS WORKING" is the 2008 replacement for "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

    by KnotIookin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:08 AM PDT

  •  So why doesnt Clinton have 20 or so Supers (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    juslikagrzly, annan, LordMike, Stroszek

    flocking to her this morning? If they have chosen her lets get on with it.

    •  she's unacceptable to superdelegates (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle

      and if the undecided superdelegates ultimately adamantly decide they don't want Obama either, they will try to hammer out a compromise candidate who would be able to unite the party. Clinton has less of a shot at the nomination than Al Gore or John Edwards.

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      Come on, supers.  If you're planning on shoving her down the throats of the collective party then get on with it.

      Let the splitting begin.

      "Politics, a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Pierce

      by mentaldebris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Brilliant! (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you, thank you, and THANK YOU for this! Send this to all Clintonista "supporters" if they're capable of grasping the logic!

    "$hit kickers voted twice for a retard that they wanted to have a beer with, and the rest of us have to suffer the consequences!" Bill Maher

    by CityLightsLover on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:17 AM PDT

  •  NPR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KibbutzAmiad, wrights

    has been putting positive spin on lastnight's Hillary win.
    And lastnight on my local FOX news Shepard Smith was playing the race card, saying Hillary is going to have to be "very specific" in convincing delegates she's the right choice.

    I could be wrong. I don't think so. This is in the context of a framed "working class white guy win" for Hillary in the eyes of FOX and Mara Liasson and those types.

    White, working-class Obama fan~

    by plok on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:49 AM PDT

    •  I don't think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle, Fixed Point Theorem

      there is any other way to interpret her comments to Richardson ("He can't win, Bill.  He can't win.") other than, "Too many people won't vote for a black guy."

      Either she actually believes this or figures she can convince enough of the sd's to believe it.  

      •  Why on Earth Would You Think That? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't understand how Obama's blackness suddenly means EVERYTHING that ANYBODY says about him is said ONLY because he is black.

        •  He's in a double bind - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fixed Point Theorem

          Too Black and not Black enough.  To mention this is "whining."  AND, his big fault is to be a Black guy who's obviously educated - surely a death sentence (figuratively only, I hope) among certain lower class types.  And by lower class, I mean low, not working class.

          •  What I Was Asking the Commentor.. (0+ / 0-)

            ...was why is it that for anyone to have doubts about Obama's electability, those doubts MUST be based on the color of his skin.  The commentor said?

            "[I don't think] there is any other way to interpret her comments to Richardson ("He can't win, Bill.  He can't win.") other than, "Too many people won't vote for a black guy."

            There are probably a hundred and fifty-thousand other ways to interpret this.  If someone said they didn't think Clinton could win (and plenty of people have said it) MUST they be talking about the fact that she's a woman?  Is there "no other way" to interpret that?

          •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

            just how many working class white guy racists are there? Who actually vote? For a woman?

            The race thing is bunk to me. But I hope Hillary tries playing it again.

            White, working-class Obama fan~

            by plok on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:54:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I said that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fixed Point Theorem

          CLINTON is telling the superdelegates that he can't win because he is black.  

          Clinton used racist tactics to attack Obama.  I do not believe she IS a racist, but she is willing to employ it to discredit him.  Where did I say that EVERYTHING that ANYBODY says about him is ONLY because he is black????

  •  Let us pick a `significant' county in PA, ignore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notquitedelilah

    all else. And declare victory. Just to show the vacuousness of the one state strategy spin.

    But I have to admit that the one state strategy is a great way to mobilize support. If our people in IN are convinced that it is make or break for Barack, they will redouble their efforts. That is what we can learn from the Clintons.

    They are formidable opponents. Even McCain will be easier than the Clintons.

    What county should we pick? Some one  in PA...

  •  Think what that would entail. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redtex

    If the superdelegates overturned the will of the people, can you imagine the scene in Denver at the convention?  Chicago would pale in comparison.

    All of these years, the African American vote has been a given, one of the mainstays for the Democratic party. What a horrible payback for years of loyalty.  

    Would the superdelegates really want this to happen?  They can stop this madness now and do the right thing, support the legitimate front-runner.

  •  Let's just start a revolution against the empire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redtex

    of Superdelegates trying to drag the bottom-up popular vote off beneath our feet. Let's teach the Democratic Leadership a democratic lesson. Demand your votes to be respected and demand an electoral college system that respects the proportional and fair representation of the popular bottom-up vote.

    Let the democratic pain trickle up.

  •  Time for Obama to push back, and be Alpha male (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, moltar, notquitedelilah

    Obama needs to tell those chattering classes that...

    He's going to win Indiana,
    he's going to win North Carolina,
    he's going to win the primary, and
    he's going to beat John McCain ...

    because he has a better plan for America, and he's going to work harder than his opponents, and fight for what he believes in. See you in Washington.

    •  Forgive Me But (0+ / 0-)

      Alpha male my ass.

      He just needs to continue to connect with voters like he has done for months (and avoid being eaten by a bear).  Obama will continue to talk about issues and inspiration. He will continue to have a superior volunteer effort that will register new voters and GOTV on primary election day.  North Carolina is his and Indiana can be won.

      I would humbly suggest that Michelle might consider doing something that the Hillary campaign has done though..and that is to have "tea parties" for ladies, held in private homes.  Not primarily as fund raisers, but as mini town halls.  These were very effective for the Clinton Campaign in PA.  Couldn't hurt in terms of peeling away her demographic.

      "Nothing can stand in the way of the *power* of millions of voices calling for change" Obama

      by SherriG on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:34:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you proved my point (0+ / 0-)

        You could have said: I disagree with your Alpha male theory.

        But you said: "Alpha male my ass."

        Tough, resolute, obliterates my argument. You are an alpha (fe)male. Congratulations. You proved my point.

        Obama needs to keep doing what he's doing, true, but he also needs to show some toughness and confidence in order to shut up Clinton and her surrogates and the little talking heads, and to show the people of Indiana and North Carolina that they should have no doubt that he's going to win this thing -- and change America.  

        •  Hi. It Isn't (0+ / 0-)

          that your point eluded me.  Au contraire, I just know that Obama doesn't need to try to be anything..other than what he already is.  I trust him to know what to do.  He has done the impossible already.

          Right now, smarter is stronger.  JMHO

          "Nothing can stand in the way of the *power* of millions of voices calling for change" Obama

          by SherriG on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I will not be denied! Sprint to the finish.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notquitedelilah

    Every time in my life people have said "are you sure? and I have replied "yes I am" Do you really want this? Yes I do!!

    I am not going to loose focus now! Don't be a fool! We need to sprint to the finish. We will win N.Carolina,Indiana, and Oregon.  We will sprint now. Cut through all the bullshit and keep focused on the prize. Just make it happen!

  •  Hillary to get help from her Republican friends (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paintitblue

    in NC.

    MAKING NEWS TODAY, from NBC/National Journal's Carrie Dann: "The North Carolina Republican Party will unveil a 30-second ad [Wednesday] that attacks Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore for endorsing Barack Obama. The ad, per the party, will reference 'controversial figures from Barack Obama's past' and raise the question of the candidates' 'judgment' in supporting him. The ad will be unveiled at an 11am press conference. ...

    Smearing the SD that support Obama is a very sleazy tactic, and the Repugs know that this thing lies with the SD.  

  •  Thank you, but I have enough rationales of (0+ / 0-)

    my own for why she should have left the race 2 months ago. Those rationales were provided by many excellent contributors on this very website. Why would I want a rationale from a hillary surrogate?

    Their only point that resembles a rationale at this point, is that there may be enough racists in this country that are willing to shoot themselves in the foot by voting only on the basis of race and thereby handing the election to mcsame in the general, so he can draft them and their young relatives for his perpetual war, but it's a rationale that dare not speak its name, and it's probably wrong anyway.

  •  superdelegates will decide this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cka

    I dont like, you dont like, but there it is.

    Therefore, she has every chance of winning this election, because she only has to convince a supermajority of SDs to back her.

    No small task admittedly but listen, there is a reason they haven't already backed Obama, or perhaps there are reasons, but if they havent backed him yet, then they are still open to changing their minds, every last one of them.

    Clinton is winning the spin war, she is winning the narrative, at least until Obama wins in NC and hopefully in Indiana.

    I DO think Obama, regardless of the fact that he leads in almost every metric imaginable, blue states, primaries won, caucuses won, popular vote, pledged delegates won, needs to win Indiana to completely knock her out.

    Otherwise, we go to the convention. You can bank on it.

    •  Suggestions for Obama supporters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

       Send a polite (postal) letter and follow-up email to your local superdelegates indicating that if Obama wins the nomination by the rules in place at the start of the contest, it will not be acceptable to you for the superdelegates to overturn that decision.  Further, and again politely, indicate that you will not accept a candidate chosen by party insiders over the voters, and that in fact such a decision ***will*** impact your downticket vote and fundraising efforts.

       Many Obama supporters threaten a boycott at the presidential level if he's robbed of the nominee position, but then indicate they'll vote Democratic downticket.  That insulates many superdelegates from any consequence to their actions - don't let that happen.

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

      by ColonelKlink on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Winning the spin war? (0+ / 0-)

      So basically you're saying the superdelegates are just as stupid as she and her surrogates think they are.

      I'm not disagreeing with her assessment, for all I know she could be right and the superdels are nothing but robotic morons who will swallow any foolish and/or fantastic spin they hear.

      Although, perhaps not all of them. I recall one complaining not too long ago about being treated like an idiot with the Clinton spin.

      So where are they? Where were they after OH and TX? Come out, come out and endorse if you're buying the spin. She won. It's safe to endorse now.

      I think it's past time for the supers to put up or shut-up about how "undecided" they are.

      "Politics, a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Pierce

      by mentaldebris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:24:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  excellent piece as always (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HighSticking

    I'm asking is for her surrogates to come up with rationales that aren't absurdly premised and/or dismissive of the electorate. Given that I can't think of any such non-absurd arguments, that may pose a problem.

    Isn't that a bit like saying that all you are asking for is world peace?

    Seriously, there are no rationales that aren't absurdly premised, you know that, I know that and most galling of all the media knows that.

    Please don't insult monsters

    by stevej on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:31 AM PDT

  •  Wow guys... Are you seriously THIS spun out? (4+ / 0-)

    Somehow, the candidate that only needs to win 39% of the remaining delegates to get the delegate lead is "hurting our party and should pull out"?

    Somehow the candidate with the popular vote should is in deep trouble?

    Somehow the candidate with a massive fundraising advantage, the biggest that the democratic party has ever seen, is in deep trouble?

    Somehow the candidate that narrowed down a 30% poll to a 9% loss in a single state out of 50 is in deep trouble?

    Seriously. Chill pill. We don't need SCARED supporters and obama backers. We need ACTIVE ones.

  •  The Electorate IS THAT STUPID (6+ / 0-)

    When i hear the folks in these interviews saying things like, "Well i have no idea what Obama stands for, I mean what about the rising costs of college tuition - what is he going to do about that?"  Then the truth is that these people's lives must be dandy because they're not paying a bit of attention to what has been going on for the past 14 months!!!  My mother keeps saying Mickey Mouse can beat John McCain.  And I have to tell her that SHE has no clue what people are thinking outside of LA.  And I ask her this question: If her theory is true then why haven't most of the Republicans come out in support of Clinton or Obama?!?!  
    The average person is NOT PAYING ATTENTION - so my only guess is that the average person's life is FINE AND DANDY or their a bunch of IDIOTS.

    •  The latter. Bunch of idiots. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      Ask them.

      Bush is still a nice guy and a good president, just "on the wrong track."

      Hillary is strong and a policy wonk.

      McCain is a maverick.

      Obama is a Muslim.

      The nation is a disaster not because of its leaders but because it is a capitalist democracy and its population base is completely intellectually bankrupt and this is going to remain the case thanks to the for-profit nature of the information and culture infrastructure.

      Doom.

      I don't think there's much chance that the U.S. as it exists now will exist at the same level of importance and power that it has now beyond the next half century. Game is over; China and "new" Europe are on the rise and the place to be.

      -9.63, 0.00
      Anti-groupthink is the groupthink of the anti-groupthink group.

      by nobody at all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:41:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are a bunch of Idiots (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      And that is Hillary's base. The chronically stupid and the soon to die.

  •  "...absurdly premised (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kpardue, Spekkio

    and/or dismissive of the electorate."

    We need higher standards than that. I don't want character assassination, deliberately divisive or inflammatory remarks (obliterate Iran comes to mind) or lies and distortions.

  •  I'm yawning today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OHeyeO

    For weeks now, we've been bombarded with PA Primary  speculation, predictions, polling, and analysis-in-advance.  What must the candidates do?  What are reasonable expectations? What does a Clinton win mean?

    And now that it's over, nothing happened.  Clinton barely eked out enough of a margin to round up to a double digit spread.  Inasmuch as that arbitrary threshold seemed to have crystallized as the "she's not out of it" limit, life goes on for both candidates.  But, after weeks of talk, talk, talk about just what this means, it's anti-climactic.  There's nothing more to say post-primary, because it was all said in the weeks leading here.  Basically, everything went according to a pre-determined conclusions.  No surprises.

    Even this win does almost nothing to help Hillary Clinton's case for the nomination, it only keeps it on life support for another few weeks.  She won't win the delegate count.  She won't win the most states.  She likely won't win the popular vote.  Shocker of shockers, this is exactly what everyone form the MSM to the blogosphere has been saying for months.  So what did yesterday mean?  How does that change the outlook for HRC?  What's new?

    Nothing, not at all, and nothing.  Yawn.

    When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

    by rb608 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:38:53 AM PDT

  •  She's broke (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978

    Her campaign will get the run about in the run up to NC and Indiana, she needs to keep NC close, and try win Indiana, but she doesn't have the money to do it. Smash her in NC, win Indiana, and then see if she and the SDs have the guts for the end in Oregon.

    The end is near, this will be a minor battle in the bigger picture.

    Vote for London, Vote for Ken, 1st May

    by Rothkoldn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:39:23 AM PDT

  •  The first rule of Clintonball (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terminus, Spekkio, meatwad420

    is Clinton always wins.

    The second rule of Clintonball is CLINTON ALWAYS WINS!

  •  We need our own meme on the big state argument (4+ / 0-)

    Here's the meme:

    The big states will choose Obama over McCain.

    Repeat after me.

    The big states will choose Obama over McCain.

    Just because they chose hillary, does not mean that they will choose McCain.

    The big states will choose obama over McCain.

    Obama is more competitive in swing states.
    Obama is more competitive in swing states.
    Obama is more competitive in Iowa.
    Obama is more competitive in New Mexico.
    Obama is more competitive in Colorado.
    Obama is more competitive in North Carolina.
    Obama is more competitive in North Dakota.
    Obama is more competitive in Oregon, Washington.

    Obama is more competitive in swing states.

    Obama puts new states into play.

    The big states will choose Obama over McCain, and Obama is more competitive in swing states.

  •  If Cllinton somehow becomes the nominee I will (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem, redtex, cjsmom

    just not vote in the Presidential election.  The way she has run this campaign since falling behind on Super Tuesday has been abhorrant and I cannot in conscience give her my vote.  I will vote in my down-ticket state election and watch us begin the third Bush term with John McCain, hoping a real Democrat will win in 2012.  Perhaps the time will be right then for John Edwards.

    •  I agree except... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      if Clinton is the nominee, that means a large chunk of superD's overturned the will of the people. A lot of these SD are "down ticket" office holders. I will make my list and promptly NOT vote for them either.

      If they want to shit in the punchbowl, they can't expect me to drink it with a smile too...

      Who do I have to blow to get the Clintons to GO AWAY?

      by HighSticking on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Super-Delegates (0+ / 0-)

    After May 6 the Super-Delegates seriously need to cowboy up and start endorsing one way or another. No more of the anonymous group  of 50 that seemingly vow to declare every two weeks and doesn't because they are more concerned with the power they wield instead of the health of the party.

    If this bullshit goes on much past May 6th we can forget about November. The only thing that makes Obama unelectable is a continued primary fight to the Convention with both Clinton and McCain attacking him.

  •  Please post this at MyDD. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aimeeinkc, Spekkio

    The best arguments are the smart ones, the measured ones, the logical ones.  

    It lacks all caps, bolded words.  It says nothing underhanded or mean spirited.  It's just smart.

  •  Obama could be eaten by a bear? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stoy, RantNRaven

    Well, as O said on TCR--grizzly bears are the number one threat to America!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:43:20 AM PDT

  •  Is this their mantra? (0+ / 0-)

    Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear, it's not going to happen, so the Clinton campaign wants the superdelegates to overturn the primary and caucus results at the convention and appoint her the rightful winner, even though she is, at this point, clearly losing.

    If so, I haven't heard this except from the pundits.  Show me, someone, where this has come from the Clinton campaign.  Now, I do believe that a majority of the Supers have vastly outsized heads and it would therefore be natural for them to want to play power brokers. I don't doubt this one bit.  Should be interesting.

  •  Bill's "mistakes" are STRATEGY (6+ / 0-)

    Bill's recent "race-card" comment was no accident.  (And there's no way he cussed by accident on air).  He can pretend that he's over the hill, but in fact he's a master of good-ol'-boy language.  And he also knows there's no way for Obama to respond without keeping the words "race card" constantly in the media, which for better or worse annoys some white folks.

    Obama has a problem with Appalachia, as this site pointed out not long ago.  Why not talk about his own distant roots in the region, like his great great great great grandaddy McCurry from Kentucky?  He has a chance right now to connect before key mountain primaries, not to mention the general campaign.

  •  Thank God for Chuck Todd (5+ / 0-)

    The rest of the MSM is intolerable.  At least he brings it home consistently that BHO has a very nearly insurmountable lead.

    I like Hunter's point that it's unquestioned why SHE can't close the deal.  Hillary as Rocky Balboa?  Whoa nelly.  Forgive me, but wasn't the nomination sewn up last year in the form of Clinton?

    What do we make of these numbers last night that suggested nearly 40% of Clintonians would either not vote or not vote dem in Novemeber if Billary is not the nominee?

    The revolution will be live

    by tinfoilhat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:46:22 AM PDT

    •  Well she is like Rocky in one respect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tinfoilhat

      insofar as she's going to lose to a charismatic black guy in the end.

      Really, though, the spin from both sides in the wake of PA is just like reading the news after TX and OH - Clinton still delusional in her own private Alamo, Obama still pointing out the reality of the inevitable delegate/popular vote outcome.

    •  Did you see Ron Fournier pushing this spin? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tinfoilhat, RantNRaven

      Here's his intro:

      He's flush with cash. He oversees a high-tech political movement. His "change" message fits these anxious times. And, until recently, he had momentum. So why didn't he win Tuesday?

      And why can't he close the deal?

      Obama "oversees" a high-tech political movement. Got that?

      These are the folks who Obama said "cling to" guns and God, an inelegant attempt to explain to San Francisco liberals how GOP operatives exploit Democratic voters in anxious economic times. He bowled (poorly) and drank beer in a feeble attempt to show a blue-collar touch.

      Pure spin --you have to read it to believe it.

    •  Re:Numbers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tinfoilhat

      Voters are notoriously bad at predicting what they will do in several months.

      (Kerry would have won.)

      When the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the potential of their children or grandchildren getting shipped off to new wars, and the realization they might be voting for an idiot who thinks "economy" is the section of the airplane he'd never set foot in becomes more of a reality for them, they might seriously rethink their decision.

      "Politics, a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Pierce

      by mentaldebris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:31:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just ignore them and they will go away (0+ / 0-)

    The problem is those arguments simply aren't credible. You can't spin away an insurmountable delegate disadvantage with declarations of mulligans or claims of an "electability" that hasn't been able to actually get you elected.

    Exactly. Hillary has nothing. It is all a mind game and for some reason Obama is playing instead of just laughing. Every candidate loses some states on his way to the nomination. John F. Kennedy did. John McCain did this year.

    Hillary has nothing but smoke, but when Obama's team responds to it, that gives her campaign a chance of coming back to life. It gives her free publicity. Most importantly for Hillary, it gives a chance for the one thing to happen which could make Obama lose: if he loses his temper or makes some drastic mistake.

    Why does Obama's campaign think they need to respond to every piece of spin, and every lie her campaign tells? Ignore it and attack McCain. If they specifically accuse Obama of something, then have an aide deny it.

  •  many of the obama voters (3+ / 0-)

    will never vote for Hillary.  They will stay home or vote for McCain, or write in someone.  You cannot add up Clinton and Obama's votes and assume all those will be voting Democrat in the general election.  Many also won't vote if she is on the ticket as VP.

    •  I don't believe that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moira977

      I am sorry to hear you say that you will never vote for Hillary.  That must mean that you don't love your country more than you despise Hillary.  I do.  And I will vote for Hillary if I have to.  I will hold my nose and go home and take a shower afterwards to wash off the stench, but I will vote for her.  This country can't survive another 4 years of Republican rule.  

      Besides the occupation in Iraq, the environment and the economy, think about the judiciary.  The Republicans have already turned a 55-45 Democratic advantage in Judges to a 67-33 Republican advantage.  And then there is the Supreme court to consider.  These people are the ones who will be making our laws for years to come.  Do we really want to give the Republicans any more activist judges?

      •  I don't know what I will do. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fixed Point Theorem

        But, I do know of many new Obama voters who have never voted for a Democrat before who will NEVER vote for her, or for him if she is anywhere on the ticket.  There are 7 or so in my family alone who will go back to Repubs or just sit this out in disgust.  She has only increased her negatives since the beginning of this thing.

      •  It's the bigger bigger picture... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fixed Point Theorem

        Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas are young and will be controlling the Court for awhile. The SC is already lost for another generation; the time for that argument was 2000/2004. (And frankly, if the congressional Dems had any backbone, the court wouldn't already be packed with right wing nut jobs. They could have forced more centrist choices but DIDN'T.)

        But, to vote for Hillary anyway--even knowing that her only path to the nomination at this point is an illegitimate one--is just saying to the party that you don't care how far right they run, you don't care how the party bigwigs nominate or un-nominate the candidate and ultimately, primaries don't matter at all, because you are perfectly willing to vote for any person with that little (D) behind their name.

        In that case, they don't have to listen to you, you don't matter and you have zero leverage. They might as well nominate Ann Coulter, because if it were 'Ann Coulter (D)' on the ballot, well, she'd get your vote too.

        And frankly, in your scenario, in the very unlikely case that Hillary beat McCain (which I don't believe she would), her presidency would be a nightmare of the 1990's all over again. Do you really want to hear about what Bill's penis is up to 24/7 for 4 years? Do you think that Hillary will get an OUNCE of cooperation from republicans in congress to pass anything?? It will be the politics of personal destruction every day, all day. Yeah, she may be a fighter, but getting your nose bloodied every day and managing to stand up and take it the next day doesn't make you the WINNER in the fight.

        Lastly, please don't equate voting or not voting for a particular large political party with love of this country. That has about as much to do with anything as wearing a lapel flag pin.

        Who do I have to blow to get the Clintons to GO AWAY?

        by HighSticking on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:30:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton vs. the country (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        reid, Fixed Point Theorem

        "That must mean that you don't love your country more than you despise Hillary."

        Not necessarily.  Hillary Clinton would be ineffective at preventing the noise machine from tarring her with the fallout from the Bush/Rethuglican crimes and idiocies of the last eight years. Democrats would be blamed.  They'll try the same crap against Obama, but he's better at repelling it.  She'll be another Bill Clinton, pursuing Republican-influenced triangulationist goals while letting "Liberalism" take the blame for everything that goes wrong on her watch.

        I don't know if anyone can pull this country out of the tailspin the Bush Crime Family has put it into, in terms of security, prosperity, and general credibility.  I'd be willing to place a bet on Obama's ability to begin to change direction to keep us from running up on the rocks.  Failing that, if the chickens are going to come home to roost and deliver ruin, I'd rather it were blamed on the party that's really responsible for it.

        What has Hillary Clinton done to indicate that she'd deviate more than five degrees from the course to hell Bush has laid in?  And what has she done to indicate she'd be anything other than totally inept at preventing herself from going down in history as the architect of America's collapse?

    •  RE: I will stay home (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HighSticking

      I also will stay home...I will not vote for Hillary or McCain...it would be against any principle I had in my body..

    •  She's been sounding very hawkish lately, (0+ / 0-)

      and frankly, if we're getting a Republican/DINO anyway, I can see where people will vote for McCain on the basis of keeping the Bush tax breaks in place.

      Why do they hate our freedom?

      by Shesk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:13:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama Team at fault for weak counterspin (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with the entirety of Hunter's analysis.

    At the same time, Obama's campaign team is doing an abysmal job of marketing their candidate.

    They should be vigorously, pro-actively saturating the information stream with a message of Obama's comeback, consitent success and inevitability. Instead, they are reacting to events --including the Clinton team's spin.

    Instead of just emphasizing Clinton's "right to stay in the race," Obama's surrogates need to follow with quips like, "...but with all due respect, someone needs to provide Sen. Clinton a calculator --she was mathematically defeated after Wisconsin."

    They need to tell and re-tell the story of Clinton's monumental collapse from 2-years of being the establishment front-runner to chasing the Change Candidate: "...Sen. Clinton was the establishment front-runner for over two years with every financial and insider advantage. Yet in a few short months, our people-powered mission to change the political status quo has taken us to the lead. We intend to continue our mission straight to the Democratic convention and beyond, without looking back."

    •  Why not send your suggestions to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aimeeinkc

      the Obama campaign ?

      I talked to many low information voters while canvassing for Barack in PA and I know that the lobbyist issue was way too lofty for them. They like their issues simple and in sound bites. They've bought into and are "clinging" to her  "experience" message. I   think he has to do bring out some other message besides "change" and getting rid of the same old Washington politics. Maybe he could play up his anti-war stance ?

      But then again, the simpletons don't want change. They want Bill back in the White House.

      It may be impossible for him to win over these close-minded people with their racist attitudes. One guy even admitted to me that he was a racist.

  •  Colbert was right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio, paintitblue

    Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear

    Grizzly Bears are the single greatest threat to America.

    We have to become the leaders we seek. --boadicea
    Visit Texas Kaos. We're taking Texas back!

    by sccs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:50:06 AM PDT

  •  There is a scenario to make Clinton quit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Madill

    and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

    There is another scenario that could make her quit.  That would be the fact that she is basically broke.  She has tapped out her large donors and she doesn't have the ability to collect much from small donors.  Her campaign has little cash on hand and huge debts.  Unless she gets a large bump in donations from the PA win, she is going to have a hard time continuing in the race.  

    One of the things I wonder about is why Hill and Bill aren't using some of the $110 million they have raked in since Bill left office to augment her campaign?  Romney spent, what, 20 million of his own money on his campaign.  I guess he had more faith in his campaign than Hill and Bill do in hers.  They are willing to spend donors money but not their own.  

    •  She did loan herself 5 million (0+ / 0-)

      By all accounts the Clinton Campaign is spending 1 million a day, and at that rate they could be back to poor white trash in no time if they started spending their own money.

      If she is going to have a Waterloo before the convention Indiana may very well be it. Obama's better organization and can just keep spending. HRC won Pennsylvania (well, was given Pennsylvania by Rendell) but she's out of cash and just from what I've seen when I was back in Evansville (IN) her organization is a mess.

  •  Very well written (0+ / 0-)

    I am of the same opinions.
    This dishonest attempt at changing the rules in the 9th inning is truly absurd and should the Clinton team manage to win over the Supers with such illogical and unfair nonsense, we can all be assured that Hillary's trustworthiness will continue to nosedive as she faces "straight talk- honest Abe" McCain in the general.
    Its not hard for the GOP to brand the Clintons as liars, especially since the Clintons have gone out of their way to prove that very notion.

  •  *sigh* So depressing (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with every word you said and applaud your eloquence in expressing it, but the horserace at this point is so, so tiring.  Godspeed Obama, Godspeed!

    I forgot my mantra.

    by karenz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51:28 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is acting more like (6+ / 0-)

    a 3rd grader running for class president.  Dirty tricks, insults, pouting....lots of pouting, changing the "rules" if the current results don't quite suit her, taking lotsa $$$ from her "friends" only to give it to closer "friends" and not paying her cafeteria lunch tab because she'd rather buy something out of the lunchroom vending machine.  Petulant, entitled.......

    Is this what we want in a President??  I think not. We are adults here and Hill is acting childish.  Enough!

    SDs.....end your self-imposed silence.  Speak out NOW for the good of the party, the nation, and the whole world.  Life on earth cannot make it through a Hillary or a McBush presidency.....it just can't.

    End this NOW!!  

    "What, Me Worry?"...King George Walker Alfred Eusless Newman Bush

    by RantNRaven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:52:49 AM PDT

  •  Bias and blarney. (0+ / 0-)

    The Obama camp whining about ABC "unfairness" was either naive or blinded by partisanship. The general will be much, much worse. Remember how Republicans brag on spending $200 million to get Americans to hate Kerry, a decorated vet. The ABC shindig was simply a campaign opening salvo.

    Now we have a Clinton victory among her base, no great surprise. What is surprising is the lack of acknowledgment that her base represents a huge section of American voters. You can slice and dice Obama support, but he does not resonate with a large segment of the electorate, and Hillary does.

    I don't think, as has been mentioned, that race is as important a factor to date as gender. This has both helped and harmed Hillary. Many men and some women don't trust women in powerful authority roles. Men head most governmental, business, educational and financial institutions. And men of color are among these leaders far more frequently than are women. The prospect of moving a woman into the White House raises many a hackle.

    Clinton does cart around some heavy baggage, but some of its contents aren't all bad. Her husband, despite media attempts to emphasize his misspeaks over his enormous popularity, did improve the lives of many working Americans while in office. His departure signaled the end of the only extended period of middle class prosperity in the past thirty years.

    So we have a real race once again. The media is downplaying the Pennsylvania results because I think big business thinks it is in their interests to have an Obama candidacy, and that should raise many questions about the motivations behind this. They are not benign.

    I reference the ABC debate as to how Obama would be beaten up by media in a general election. As an opening gambit, the trivial, intensely personalized questions thrown at Obama during the debate will be endlessly hashed over in the general. Obama will not have a direct opportunity to respond, as he did in the debate, and he didn't do very well with personal attacks. This concerns me as to his ability to handle the ferocity of media and campaign attacks through November.

    It would be good to have the primaries behind us, and a candidate to support. But the campaign is electrifying the country, and engaging many who have only hung on the sidelines before. This dynamism is good for our democracy, as issues important to all of us are being debated again and again, with increasing detail and clarity.

    It is difficult to force campaigns to stick to issues, because campaign promises sound great but experience shows campaigners often can't or won't deliver once in office. So voters have to decide who they think will actually deliver on the issues, and Pennsylvania voters have chosen Hillary, as have voters in most big states. This is despite the press pounding on her negatives with blunt force trauma.

    Whoever wins the campaign has my support. I think Pennsylvania is illustrative of how Clinton would perform in the general.

    McCain: Same as W, only older.

    by 4Freedom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:57 AM PDT

  •  Uh.... (0+ / 0-)

    "is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates."

    Neither can Obama...

    •  The difference is that (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton's team is intent on seemingly ignoring the rules of the primaries.
      Florida and Michigan cannot be counted under the rules at this time.
      And the metrics one would use to base a decision were one a super do not bode well for the Clintons. So instead of them just being like "we have an uphill battle" we get a bunch of hogwash which comes across as insulting to our collective intelligence. You don't seek to change the rules (even if its only meant as spin) mid-game after agreeing to the rules before the contest began.
      Its stinks of being a poor sport. And "honest John McCain" will have a field day with the "lying Clintons".

  •  Hillary makes me so not mellow, dude (3+ / 0-)

    Pardon my boutique-state, latte-sipping, Prius driving, Birkenstock-wearing opinion, but I'm just going to put my bong down here for a moment, and say that I think Richardson summed up Hillary's bullshit really well a few weeks ago:

    New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said today that the people around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton practice "gutter" politics and that they feel entitled to the presidency, a day after an informal adviser to her campaign compared Richardson to Judas for endorsing Sen. Barack Obama.

    ...
    "I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson responded on "Fox News Sunday." "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

    When I think back to the Democratic Party's minority status between 1994 and 2006, the 12-year avalanche of bullshit that we had to put up with from Gincrich, DeLay, and all the other GOP jackals (who still rule the fucking airwaves), and the incredible damage that they did, I want to puke. I thank the DLC in large part for that. So fuck her, fuck Terry Mc Auliffe, and fuck all of Hillary's sycophantic aides like Lanny "No Balls" Davis,who will say and do anything to get their Queen into the White House.

    The people who brought you the War on Terror are the same ones who brought you the War on Drugs.

    by Terminus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:59:24 AM PDT

  •  And of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977

    what about all the people, who, umm, actually voted for Clinton? (I'm a NJ Obama man, myself, and I voted for him.) What are they? Chopped liver? Rubes, rednecks, racists, snake handlers,  all the other things we usually associate with the Rovian horde?  Sorry, but I don't think so. I think they are, you should pardon the expression, Democrats. We ought to treat them that way.

    It's perfectly true that HRC is a big part of the problem, with her Rovian ads and scare tactics and implications that Obamites are pansy latte-drinking commies. She has just got to stop that shit. But my fellow Democrats: So do we.

  •  God Obama has run a smart campaign. (4+ / 0-)

    PA was Hillary's to win from the get-go. He could have conceded the way she did most of the Feb races and svaed his cash. By running full-out yet strategically he not only narrowed the gap, particularly of delegates. But more importantly, he forced her to spend money she doesn't have and bankrupted her.

    Now he goes on to Indiana and NC where he will not only erase her gains but increase his lead.

    It would have been nice to see her out today, but Obama is running the smart race that he knows is a marathan.

  •  REPUBS GOING AFTER OBAMA SUPERDS! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paintitblue, RadioGirl

    What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:02:06 AM PDT

  •  BREAKING: Obama eaten by bear!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio
  •  It was the battle of the bulge (0+ / 0-)

    It was Hillary's glorious attempt to break through Obama's allied lines and score a decisive victory that would lead to an ultimate victory.  It did create a bulge but not large enough to break through the lines.  It's now the beginning of the march to Berlin (better known as Denver).  Hillary can either hunker down in her bunker or exit gracefully while she still maintains respect as a U.S. Senator from NY.  What she can't do is win the war for the nomination.  

  •  Deeply personal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio

    This phrase, repeated last night by Hillary in her victory speech, says it all in a nutshell.

    It is not about our country, the Democratic party, the citizens, the 4000+ who have died in Iraq, the melting ice caps, the people who have lost their homes.  It is about her.  

  •  Something to ponder. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama outspent Clinton by 3-1 in Pennsylvania. They each had six weeks to campaign in the state. He is a charismatic and exciting candidate. Yet, Clinton won by 10 points. There seems to be a pattern occurring, and it is not a pretty picture of Americans. I fear that prejudice is rearing its ugly head. Obama will win the nomination, but it is going to require a tsunami of new voters, younger voters and better educated voters, as well as African American voters, to turn out in huge numbers to beat McCain. Deep held prejudices are very difficult to overcome.

    "This is not our America and we need to take it back." John Edwards.

    by mcmom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:04:16 AM PDT

    •  Here is the Pattern in PA..... (0+ / 0-)

      The Clintons paid the Ward Captains to go and get HER vote out.

      Obama does NOT play that kind of politics.  If she had not won....look at all that "palm greasing" that old style, machine politics that would have gone to waste.

    •  Why do you think it's prejudice? (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe it's my age (53) but I see a very green competitor. He is so charming and so principled yet politics is oftentimes neither and always so much more. I honestly see no evidence of racial prejudice since to me there are more obvious reasons...he seems unready, more so over time. Bush was unready (not to say he ever could have been but he was untested), Carter was unready even with his experience, unready has consequences...I have problems with Clinton as well but I must say, she's ripe and ready and stampeding still in the gate.

      I don't know how reliable it is yet but without numbers, my rule of thumb is that both gender and race have both positive and negative impacts canceling out overall significance. We'll see...

      HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

      by kck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In small part, perhaps. (0+ / 0-)

      But you are discounting several very influential factors.

      They know Clinton.  Voters flock to the familiar name intuitively.

      Clinton political machine. Almost 16 years in the making. Very tough to overturn in heavy machine states.

      Older voters -- reliable and yearning for the old "glory" days in what they see as a third term for Bill. PA & OH are two of the "older" states, IIRC.

      I heard on NPR (I know) it was 2-1.  I thought I saw that in the NYT (I know) as well.

      3-1 or 2-1 money can't always overcome a politician with the famous last name of a popular president. That he is winning AND got as close as he did is astounding.

      And yes, no doubt in PA there was a racial aspect (I'm a former resident) but I think the reasons I stated above are more likely influences.

      "Politics, a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Pierce

      by mentaldebris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think its prejudice as much as Clinton (0+ / 0-)

      being more of a name brand.

  •  Careful impugning the electorate (0+ / 0-)

    One sure way to lose this election is to imply that the voters in any of these states - whether it be coastal, midwest, or deep south -   aren't as intelligent, involved, and thoughtful about their votes as you believe that you are.

    Many might be single issue voters - guns, family values - but I know just as many voters here in MA that vote strictly on choice issues, for example, when the state faces economic and environmental issues far more pressing.  But remember whomever your candidate is, they had a LOT of time to answer those voters concerns in their own way, and didn't do a very good job of it.  

    Obama was accused of being an elitist for his comments - if you validate that concern, he'll carry the Upper East Side, Nob Hill and not much else.

    •  Take people seriously (0+ / 0-)

      Take people seriously, by all means, but that means acknowledging their views on race as well, doesn't it?

      I'm out here in Western PA, and know personally white blue collar voters, traditionally Dems, and who hate the war, who will go for McCain rather than Obama, and I know exactly why. Most won't, which is a sign of progress around here, but far too many will, and it doesn't show your 'non-elitism' to ignore it, excuse it or pander to it. I take them on every day, but without putting my head higher than theirs one bit. I respect them enough as people to call them on it, and challenge them to break out of the prison of old ideas.

      •  Careful treading that line (0+ / 0-)

        Calling them on it is fair.. accusing them of it as a generalization isn't, and will get you burned.  What someone does in a voting booth is private, personal, and without proof - a definitive statement you can cry foul on - some general "voting racist" accusation is likely overblown.  There are enough reasons to vote against either candidate.  

        Do some vote on race? Almost surely, but that's the nature of politics and many other things.  Sometimes its just a "I like people like me" internal prejudice - which is why African-Americans are voting for Obama predominantly and women more so for Hillary.  Isn't voting for someone because of race or gender in the same ilk as voting against them, if one is ignoring issues to do it?

  •  Don't vote for the nominee, and the Repubs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977

    once again win by playing on hatred and the divide in the Democratic Party. Their plan of voting for Hilary in open states will succeed. Good job! America loves a winner, and in the next 4 years of eternal war, I'm sure we'll make progress! In Iran, too!!

    Really, how child-like to say you can't stomach Clinton. The stakes are too high to allow Republicans to retain the presidency. We will have absolute stalemate in Washington if McCain is elected, as Democrats take even more seats in Congress. Of course, Cheney has shown how to get around that! Smart moderate Republicans in office won't be so quick to vote with the party, as the country slides further into Bankruptcy and Depression. Be an adult, weigh the implications of who wins, and do what needs to be done.

    Who knows, you may get a pony!

  •  Clintons Independant Candidacy (0+ / 0-)

    She's angling for it at this point.  She will never concede and is too selfish to give up.  So this is the nightmare scenario we're going to be faced with.  There is almost no doubt about it.  I still believe Obama will pull this thing out, but she's going the Lieberman route.  

  •  Obama gains 10 points in under a week! (0+ / 0-)

    That's the real story here.  That the corporate media isn't reporting it, frustrating though it is, is no big surprise.

    A week ago, pre-debate, Clinton polled at a margin of 15-20 points higher than Obama.  Clinton's negative debate tactics actually cost her 10 points.  But she doesn't seem to be getting that message, which means that as she continue her scorched earth campaign, her support will continue to erode.

  •  Superbly put (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you...

    Question?  Should Obama go "negative?"  What would that mean?  How would it be done without hurting himself... after all some people react as if any two parties to a fight are almost equally to blame.  For Instance... NYTimes editorial today (hardly the last word in objectivity for all its purported status nationally among the "elites" while giving Hillary the bulk of the blame, somehow takes swipes at Obama both for slugging back. His mocking "Annie Oakley" even as he gave her the benefit of the doubt with "she knows better" is even criticized.

    And some are frustrated that Obama did take a pummeling in the ABC encounter with effective counter punches... does anyone have an answer?  I would love to see what an effective Obama counterattack would look like that wouldn't hurt him as well... yet surely such could be mounted or couldn't it?

    And Hunter I have admired you posts in the past... could you discuss what the demographic divide that we have seen in the Democratic Party ever since NH portends for its future?  Whither the Democratic Party?  How does one hold this creature together? Should one try to hold it together? Or is it even possible to create new coalitions of a progressive center whose parts are more compatible than those that now exist.  I for one always thought that even where I agreed with Republicans on some issues (i.e. Welfare reform)... I always deplored a real mean spirited streak that seemed to pervade the Party in recent times and that reflected itself most in the Rove play book which so polluted our political discourse.  But it seems to be alive and well in one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party.  For instance  I have far more in common with a Julie Eisenhower, who has contributed the max to the Obama campaign or with what I like to call a principled conservative than I do with the Scaifes of this world or with the PA voters who bought Hillary's campaign bilge about Wright/Ayers/Hama?Osama=Obama...So would some really  thoughtful observer do a post on what the split in the electorate portends... I see the issue.  I don't see the solutions other than a party realignment.

  •  I am going to tell this story for the 30th time.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio

    I was working for Hillary six months ago.  I could not stand the way they ran the meetings down here in Florida, the way the campaign never answered my Emails...even John Kerry wrote me from his campaign headquarters in 2004 via the mail, and lastly, I could not stand Bill injecting himself into this race, looking like a cocain addict who cannot get enough of the power of him being back in the White House.  If you take HONEST polls of everyone who voted for her so far.....and they honestly answered the question....."Do you really want Bill back in the White House..."?  This is what this election for her is really about.  I know this answer to be true.  I worked for her campaing for four months down here in So. FL.

  •  For too long (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    the media has been guilty of pandering to Hillary.  They want you to think that anything's possible.  It's not.  Do the math.  

    She cannot possibly win the nomination.  And she's $10 mil in debt. We've reached a point where this primary farce must be ended immediately.  

    How?  Maybe superdelegates can do their jobs now. Maybe she needs to be shunned by the press (unlikely).  Maybe she just needs to be booed out of town!  She's not entitled to the nomination.  The only thing this low class, ill bred woman from just about everywhere is entitled to is a good, swift, hard kick in the ass.

  •  I'm not a surrogate but there's only 1 reason... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that I see as valid, the rules. Summary: neither has won and both are within reach.

    You say:

    All the spin boils down to a simple truth: Clinton now has almost no chance of winning on the delegate count.

    Unequivocally true. Also, to paraphrase:

    All the spin boils down to a simple truth: Obama now has almost no chance of winning on the delegate count.

    Therefore according to the rules, which to my knowledge say the winner is the first to reach the magic number (not the one closest to it) continues to primary until they do. If the first ballot at the convention remains indecisive, meaning the number of Uncommitted is still significant, then the negotiating begins.

    The rules - the process - and their numbers seem to me to say that the race is still underway.

    HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

    by kck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:08:14 AM PDT

  •  So whose numbers are correct? (0+ / 0-)

    PA Election Board still has 8.6%

    MSNBC and CNN have totally different vote totals to reach their 10%

  •  clintonball = calvinball (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio, South Chamber Denizen

    The rules change according to the best way for Clinton to win.  Right now there isnt too many ways to make Clinton the winner.  She wouldnt even win a bowling match against Obama.  There is a 100 point lead with the clock down to 30 seconds.  So she scores 13 points.... Its over Billary, Barack is running out the clock.

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin

    by deviant24x on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:21 AM PDT

  •  Change the rules? They change the ball (0+ / 0-)
  •  ON NOTICE: Rules and Subrules (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio

    But with the ever-changing rules and subrules of Clintonball, my intelligence feels fairly insulted, at this point.

    Nailed It!  This sums it up.

    One of the MAJOR subtexts of the Democratic nomination process is "how you play the game" -- reason being, it highlights THE recursive relationship between the a) strategic choices made by the candidates as rejoined by b) what the electorate reinforces by voting.

    See also Weisman @ WaPo

    Made Up Rules is so -- well, any insider group, really.  
    We're sick of it, but it's how we've all come to hold on to (or lose) our little piece of the pie, isn't it?  

    Obama's strategy is almost apparently a referendum on the Republic's preference of strategy for winning (and sharing?) The Prize, however each of us may define it.

    No matter how the issues are parsed, leaving no waffle unturned, that his strategy is "about a question of strategy" seems to be the irreducible truth.

    Is anyone else feeling this massive soul-wave we're about to negotiate, too?

  •  A Conservative's Take (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caj

    I'm a conservative and not a fan of either Obama or Hillary (Or McCain either).  I'll probably be sitting out the general election or throw a protest vote over to Bob Barr.  You can handicap my following comments accordingly.

    That said, I will tell you that Republicans are growing increasingly confident of their ability to defeat Obama - probably more confident of beating Obama than Hillary.

    Here are a couple of reasons -

    1.  Hillary's voting bloc are natural McCain.  30% of her voters have said they won't go to Obama.  Clearly some of them are being overly dramatic and will probably come home, but some won't.  If a quarter (7.5% of her voters total) of those actually swing to McCain, while another 10-20% (3-6% of her vote total) just stays home, then Obama is going to have a very tough time carrying FL, PA and OH, which the Dems need to carry to win.  Obama's demographics are much more likely to go ahead and stay in the Democratic Party camp.
    1.  Obama has, the longer the campaign has gone on, seen his halo tarnished.  The expectations that were created by/around him were impossibly high, and formed an environment where he had to act better than those around him.  Obama is a gifted, intelligent man, but he is a politican.  And politicans sometimes have to associate with unsavory people.  But, when someone is held up above the natural order of politics, then revelations like Obama's land deal or Wright, or gaffes like the "bitter" comment hurt much more.  Bill Clinton could get away with because he was always handicapped - we expected that from him.  But, when someone trys to set themselves above it all, they have far less room to manuever, and when the inevitably show themselves as being just another politician, the backlash is much more severe.
    1.  You can't kill a Clinton.  I used to say that with derision, but HRC has earned respect as a fighter - even if I don't agree with her on 98% of policy matters.  She is going to fight until the last dog dies.  I don't know if I see that level of tenacity in Obama.

    I say all of that to say this - if HRC ends up pulling this out, there are some major, major silver linings for the Democrats.

    "Capitalism is the only system that can make freedom, individuality, and the pursuit of values possible in practice." - Ayn Rand

    by headhunt23 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12:28 AM PDT

    •  Two candidates with what the other needs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      headhunt23

      The problem is if you think Obama can't win OH or FL against McCain, then he has to take away another state - maybe a western one, which he could do, but if he were to lose PA or MI, he's in a tough spot to win.  Hillary probably reliably gets all the Kerry/Gore blue states, but has to change the map somewhere else as well.  However, if you super-nominate Hillary, you torpedo the party for the next 10 years.

      Nominating Obama might be a "Charge of the Light Brigade" moment - do it, even though you know its going to be bad, to preserve things for the future.  

      •  The Dems have an uphill battle (0+ / 0-)

        For all of the optimism that I see amongst Dems, looking at the electoral map, its not entirely clear how they expect to win, especially if Obama is the nominee.

        If he is the nominee, then PA will probably go for McCain, and Michigan and NJ just might be in play as well.  He can't turn Ohio blue.  What red states might he get?  Missouri?  Virginia?  Iowa? Nevada? New Mexico? I have a hard time seeing that.  And, he would have to take both VA and Iowa just to make up for the loss or PA.  

        You can see on this map that the Dems start off in the electoral hole:

        http://www.270towin.com/

        Based on the map, if McCain just takes VA, FL, OH and PA he will then only need to carry one of the states like Arkansas, MO, New Mexico, Nevada or Colorado.  I think Obama is walking much more of a razor.

        Perhaps you are right and the Dems need to do what the Republicans did in 1964.  They just would have been better off doing that charge with Dean in 2004.

        "Capitalism is the only system that can make freedom, individuality, and the pursuit of values possible in practice." - Ayn Rand

        by headhunt23 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:34:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And in Pennsylvania yesterday... (0+ / 0-)

      ... 27.3% of the Republican voters didn't vote for McCain.  Of course, there were not very many of them even bothered to vote.

      "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hunter should be made a (0+ / 0-)

    Super Duper Delegate!

    His powers:

    1. Assign up to 1/3 of super delegates clown costumes which they must wear.
    1. Change the votes of up to 1/3 of super delegates.
    1. Command that Texas super delegates allow New England states' supers to ride around on the Texans'  shoulders. (Western wear optional).
    1. Choreograph the supers in elaborate song and dance routines.
    1. Decree that all delegates must respond "Super! Thanks for asking!" to anyone who asks "how are you doing?" or its variants.
    1. Referee fist fights.
    1. Make the candidates kiss his ring and compete to send him the best flower arrangement. Or else.
    1. Fart without saying "excuse me."
    1. Gamma-ray vision.
    1. Make Iowa and New Hampshire his bitches.

    ePluribus Media - Truth be told.

    by Stoy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12:38 AM PDT

  •  Chris Matthews, of all people, had it right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paintitblue

    Not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere (doesn't appear to have been diaried)--I'm sure somebody mentioned it on the PA results tracker but it bears repeating.

    At some point last night on MSNBC, Chris Matthews said something that rather amazed me in its boldness and ability to assess the real pulse of the HRC zeitgeist right now.  It amazed me because of what I (and let's face it, lots of others) perceive as his lurid desire to keep the spin rolling to be able to eke out more inane interviews about knockout punches and gaffes and crap.

    Matthews (I won't call him tweety here since I think he got this one right) was exploring historical precedents for HRC's position and outlook in the election at this point.  He was coming up with a comparison to Hubert Humphrey, ca. 1960-1968, and Humphrey's basic self-image as the Democratic heir apparent, just because.  Then he came up with this--I don't have a link, and these aren't the exact words, but they're so close as to be virtually  identical.

    Hillary and Bill Clinton feel as though this is their Democratic party, it's their natural right to assume the presidency.  Barack Obama is nothing more to them than a temporary impediment to overcome to get there.  He's a temporary impediment now, and if he prevails in 2008, they'll see to it that he's a temporary impediment who is removed in 2012.

    The look of disgusted disdain on Matthews' face while he said this was unmistakable.  It feels like it was a rare insight into his true feelings, not the ones he's putting forth to keep the Hardball rolling.

    What's amazing about that to me and it's clear insinuation is that it's the first time that at least I can recall that a MSM figure has acknowledged the very plausible case that HRC is in this now to weaken Obama into losing to McCain this  year, or assumes the presidency with a good portion of the party having a bitter taste in their mouths that HRC is completely viable in 2012, to hell with any other consideration for the party or the country.

    Anybody else catch this?

  •  Meme: There will be no superdelegates in November (4+ / 0-)

    There will be no august council of political elites to hand Hillary Clinton the election in November, no privileged few who can overturn McCain's victories in the states should he win past Hillary's Swing-State strategy.

    Hillary is doing her best to make barely relevant, insubstantial issues tests of electability, when the truth is, the true test of electability in upcoming contests, is who can play the political ground game and win where they're not supposed to win, close the margins where they're supposed to remain behind, and reorganize the politics to their advantage.

    Hillary is the weaker candidate.  She's just the best bullshit artist of the two.  Bullshit is what we're trying to get past.

    We cannot merely think of victory in November, but also policy after November.  After November, we can expect the same deference to the Republicans, the same tin ear to our own politics, the same selfishness towards her party that we have seen in the primaries.  Imagine four more years of this same kind of politics, this same kind of useless compromise.

    We cannot afford for her to succeed in making this a game about suiting our politics to hers.  We must assert our political will and ensure that the candidate we run can stand on their own two feet and stand as one of us.  This election isn't about her, it's about us, and our priorities are more important than hers.

  •  from the first paragraph (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kck

    ...there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

    same for Obama.

    "no, how dare you sir!"-Jack Ryan

    by Rudykip on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:01 AM PDT

  •  It seems as if (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reid, Land of Enchantment
    1. Negative campaigning always wins.  What does that say about us that we are so easily swayed by innuendo, rumor, spin and thinking the worst of others?
    1. Spin works.  I wonder how many provisional ballots won't be counted until several days? weeks? months? after the election and what sort of dent they might make on the numbers?  After all, 200,000 new dems should make some kind of dent.  So Hill can claim a great victory and move on for the next round of sliming BO with people outside of his control like neighbors, pastors, etc.
    •  Double Digits (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale, ocdemgal49

      That's BS, and the TV people are too lazy to get it correctly.  They just keep saying it over and over.  It's not 10 points.  (As best the official results show NOW.)

      99.34% reporting

      Hillary - 54.3%
      Obama - 45.7%

      That's a difference of 8.6%.  You have to round UP to get to 9.  So where do they get double digits out of that?  If you round each one's results, then it's 54 to 46.  Eight.  Since when are 8 or 9, either one, double digits.  Yet that's what they are saying.

      Very sloppy work.  Nothing new there.

      Sigh.

      "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:33:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "I don't buy the notion that the campaign" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reid, Land of Enchantment

    "I don't buy the notion that the campaign is hurting the Democratic party" and yet the entire article is about how it is hurting the party... Better rethink it, cause frankly a lot of people are pretty damn polarized at this point. Sure, a lot of voters aren't, but the activists are.

  •  Almost All Negative (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reid, Land of Enchantment

    campaigning is stupid. One of the inherent "qualities" of negative campaigning is that 95% is vaccuous insinuation (like, "Yes, Barack is a Christian, as far as I know". Or flag pins).  The other 5% is stuff like "sniper fire" and "bitter"..essentially the candidates sticking their foot in their mouths.

    Plus:

    ..but all I ask in politics is that the spinners of each camp try their best to not make it quite so obvious that they think the rest of us really are a spectacular new species of rubes, able to be led by the nose to whatever ridiculous and improbable conclusion would best benefit a particular camp.

    The "voters are rubes" treatment is something else we can thank the boy king and the neocons for nearly perfecting.  Complimented nicely by a compliant traditional media.

    The next few weeks are so gonna be ugly.  I dread it, ugh.

    "Nothing can stand in the way of the *power* of millions of voices calling for change" Obama

    by SherriG on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:23:41 AM PDT

  •  Clintons path to nomination? Supers must act now! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    After all is said an done. After the dissing of the Dem base and African american voters and others. What will be left..
    Yes Obama will be bloodied like Limbaugh has said but more important is what will be left of the American public's problems.

    I heard a person from the GOp on C-span this morning say he is for Hillary because a vote for Hillary is a vote against Obama!

    So the GOP has more of a vested interest in seeing Hillary succeed. That is why the Richard Mellon Scaifs of the world have decided to take up Hillary's cause.

    It is begining to look a lot like the race between Lieberman and Lamont, where the GOP poured money and support into the Lieberman camp to stop the progressive Democratic canidate.

    Hillary is now the new Lieberman. She hates the Move on crowd. The group that ironically was founded in response to the attacks on the Clintons.

    Now we all know what has become of Sen Lieberman.

    I hope the superdelagates will decided to save the party and go ahead an come out for Sen Obama now.  This is because supers can see the math and understand that her path to the nomination will break apart the party in such a way that she will not be a viable canidate in the fall.

    6 months ago Hillary Clinton was touted by the TV heads as the front runner along with Rudy..I remember Hardball doing power rankings where Clinton was listed as the most likely to become the president for weeks.  Let's face it she blew it. Why was on one asking the question when she lost 10 straight contest "what is the matter with Clinton?why can't she win?

  •  A good debate performance can end this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    One way for BHO to reassure nervous superdelegates that he is fit to wear the daddy pants and end this never-ending campaign is to debate HRC in NC and IN.

    PLEASE, don't bother mentioning the number of debates we've already had - many of those were conducted with a stage full of pretenders muddying the waters.

    •  There are not going to be... (0+ / 0-)

      ... any more debates.  At least not any time soon.  Not before those next two races, at least.

      "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

        I am sure BHO can handle the pressure... aren't you?

        A debate moderated by some flunkies from the MSM has got to be easier than a national security crisis phone call at 3:00 AM...

        •  Because NC Democratic Party announced... (0+ / 0-)

          ... that there would not be one.  This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion on whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing.  I accept the NCDP as the authority on the matter.  If they say it's not happening?  Then it's not happening.

          You have a problem with that, I suggest taking it up with them.  But I doubt you will get anywhere with it.

          "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
          . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

          by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Such a conformist... (0+ / 0-)

            After BHO's last debate I am SURE HRC, Inc. will be looking to change that decision.

            But I guess you are correct. If the party insiders decide that the people of NC don't deserve another debate, then that is that.

            Thanks for the information and your time.

    •  problem is.... (0+ / 0-)

      just about every debate, Hillary wins...or at worst ties Obama.

      debates are definately her strong suit.  That's probably why Obama is backing out of the upcoming ones.

      •  So he's just gonna run out the clock? (0+ / 0-)

        I agree with your post - do you think she will make an issue of his lack of courage on this?

        •  Clinton Camp already is.... (0+ / 0-)

          making a deal about it.  They should and they should be expected to.  

          I think the Obama campaign is going to go into a very well controlled bubble.  They are going to try and do business as usual, but, they are not going to put him in any situation that could possibly hurt him....no debates, no off the cuff Q and A from the media, etc.

          They think they can win this now through attrition.  Hold on for dear life to the status quo and let Clinton run out of money.

          Crappy way to do it, and one that will further hurt his image as not your typical politician, but, that is just what it is....typical politics.

  •  Email CNN (0+ / 0-)

    iparty@cnn.com; ireport@cnn.com; cnn@cnn.com; lookingout@cnn.com; am@cnn.com; amhotshots@cnn.com; question@cnn.com; podcast@cnn.com; caffertyfile@cnn.com; 360@cnn.com; primenews@cnn.com;daybreak@cnn.com; moneyline@cnn.com; headlinenews@cnn.com; late.edition@cnn.com; tina.cowles@cnn.com; crossfire@cnn.com; inthemoney@cnn.com; insidepoliticts@cnn.com; jeff.greenfield@cnn.com; live@cnn.com; livefrom@cnn.com; livetoday@cnn.com; loudobbs@cnn.com; newsnight@cnn.com; paulazahnnow@cnn.com; paulazahn@cnn.com; tom.hannon@cnn.com; wam@cnn.com; wolf@cnn.com; cnn.feedback@cnn.com; cnn.onair@cnn.com; newstips@cnn.com;

    Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

    by Apphouse50 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:30:36 AM PDT

    •  I wrote to CNN (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of those addresses got returned as no good.  Not all of 'em though.  My pet peeve du jour is the "double digits" BS.  It's 9.2% at present, which should be called 9, not 10.  (It was 8.6 when I wrote, which was even starker.)

      Dunno if this will post though.  Daily Kos seems to be a big nonfunctional just now.

      "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well done again Hunter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    Thank you for articulating what the press should have noted after March 11, if not before.

    The arguments are all still based on "inevitability" and reek of apparent entitlement to the presidency, as you say.  "Even if he is beating me badly, if he can't close me out, I am the winner."

    I wonder what the sports world would be like if playoff series were scored the same as "Clintonball."

    It's amazing what people will do to others in the name of themselves.

    by ABlueKansas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:31:59 AM PDT

  •  If Baseball were like this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    you could be down 11-4 in the ninth inning
    with one out
    you drive in one run and claim victory

    Problem is, Obama is still on the mound

  •  The Better Team Argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reid, Land of Enchantment

    This has all the trappings of a football game argument. The winning team scores 24 to the losing team's 20. However, the losing team argues they were actually the better team because they scored all their points during the second half and the winning team only scored 7. The pollsters should vote for the losing team. And besides, the referee blew a call that would have given the losing team another score. And... And... And..

    Isn't Clinton becoming Donna Quixote?

  •  "Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, Spekkio

    I don't think I could make through the primaries without Hunter.

    Where did we get the notion that the strongest nation on earth should be led by a folksy, easy-to-like drunk? - Hunter

    by Mocha Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:42:41 AM PDT

  •  Overturning the Will of the Voters? (0+ / 0-)

    Clinton is leading Obama in the popular vote. That's counting all the votes, including Michigan and Florida.  Not counting those states, of course, would really be "overturning the will of the voters".  If that's so sacred to Obama worshipers, why not insist that ALL the votes be counted.  If they are, Clinton is ahead in popular votes, 15,013,813 to Obama's 14,900.543.
    Those are the cold hard numbers for Obama fans.  She's winning.
    http://abcnews.go.com/...

    http://www.rebelcentral.net/blog

    by HoneyToasted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:23 AM PDT

    •  Not again... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reid, Land of Enchantment

      Can we please get off this popular vote meme.  It's wrong.  It's not the way we select the nominee.  Don't like it?  Get the party to change the rules for the next election.  

      Futhermore, saying she's ahead by counting Florida and Michigan is like saying she's ahead if you don't count Illinois and Virginia.  Those primaries don't count -- Hillary said so herself (at least in MI).  If your candidate doesn't think they count, why should you?

      •  Kinda like saying a baseball game... (0+ / 0-)

        ... should be decided by the number of hits, rather than the number of runs.  (Or some such.)  The damn media's not helping much on this, either.

        "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
        . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

        by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I know when I'm not wanted (3+ / 0-)

    What bothers me, however, is the increasingly insulting quality of the campaign and surrogate spin as each successive campaign day wears on.

    I feel that my intelligence has been insulted enough by Hillary. If I know how to think for myself rather than being an under educated, bible-thumping, beer-swigging racist, I must be an elitist. If I care more for the future of my country than my bowling score, I must be an elitist. If I want to be involved in a discussion of how to redeem our nation from its current miserable state rather than someone's shady religious affiliations, I must be an elitist. If I want to be spoken to as an intelligent equal, rather than down to as if I am incapable of understanding anything beyond a Bud-lite TV commercial, I must be an elitist. Well, I guess that makes me an elitist. It feels like being in middle school again...don't act too smart or you won't be liked. Just fit in, don't have an opinion of your own, just be like everybody else.    

    Was I invited to come to this (Democratic) party just to be humiliated? Okay, I finally get it. I know when I'm not wanted. I'm taking my vote and going home.

    visit Digressions at http://digress08.blogspot.com/

    by cloudwatcher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:36 AM PDT

  •  I like this comment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    You have to learn how Clinton logic works
    an argument they made yesterday is not guaranteed to be valid today.mThe professor I had for symbolic logic would have failed her entire camp by now for all the contradictions.

    The Clintons don't bother with logic because it isn't useful in talking to their base, or the MSM. They use the principles of propaganda. It works better for them and allows them to change their story each day and their facts. They get caught in lies and they re-lie and accuse you of - whatever - for demanding the truth.

    Be not afraid. Fear feeds the dragon.

    by mrobinson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:49:42 AM PDT

  •  2012 nomination (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    If I were a cynic, I might point out that it may not be about 2008 at all.  The more Clinton does to tear Obama down, the greater chances McCain has of winning the 2008 election, and the greater her chances of becoming president in 2012 become.  Especially since the likelihood of a one-term president is quite high.  She will have to be the heavy primary favorite at the very least.  If I were a cynic, I might say something like that.

    Obama is the kind of politician who can get the sheep to pull the wool over their own eyes. PS - I voted for Obama.

    by Reframing the Debate on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:29:30 AM PDT

    •  Not.going.to.happen. (0+ / 0-)

      If this is her goal, it's just not going to happen (if Obama were to lose against McCain). Do you think she could get through 4 years without making some 'hard' votes? Do you think she could win back the millions of voters (and young people) who she has alienated? Do you  think she wouldn't be blamed for Obama's loss? Do you think there won't be more scandals about Bill and her? If she is banking on 2012, she is more out of touch than I thought.

      No distractions. Not this time.

      by royce on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama surrogates have one response (0+ / 0-)

    SCOREBOARD!

  •  hear hear (0+ / 0-)

    well stated Hunter.

    Clinton has a right and responsibility to her supporters (half of Democrats!) to stay in to the last minute.

    But no more "narrative" politics, by either campaign.

  •  10 percent PA victory is hardly "momentum" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    If this were a marathon, Clinton is behind by a hundred yards with less than a mile to go. At this point, she can't win without cheating.

    Unless the little Tuzla girl reveals she was a sniper...

    Or Obama is caught kneeling in prayer over a Koran...

    Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine!

    by jimbo92107 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM PDT

    •  Watching you all (0+ / 0-)

      try to spin this thing in Obama's favor is an exercise is absolute absurdity.  It reminds me of the Clinton campaign's pathetic analysis during Obama's kick-ass winning streak in February.  Instead of attempting to find positive attributes in a fairly convincing defeat, why don't you all actually ask yourselves why your candidate, despite a massive money edge, isn't performing to expectations?  And the expectation, for a front-runner who has the MSM in his corner, is a f*cking victory.

      •  BINGO, smm55.... (0+ / 0-)

        bingo.

      •  MSM in whose corner?! (0+ / 0-)

        I'd like to know how you could possibly think the MSM is in Obama's corner.  It's been nothing but Wrightgate, bittergate, flagpingate, etc. for the last few months.  I suppose you think that last debate was fair and proper?  With friends like that....

      •  Depends what "this thing" is. (0+ / 0-)

        He was talking about the entire nomination process, which Obama is winning.  You were talking about PA.  PA is one state.  You can only talk about it so much.

        why don't you all actually ask yourselves why your candidate, despite a massive money edge, isn't performing to expectations?

        I'm sorry, which candidate was Inevitable before the actual voting took place?  Hillary.  Who is leading now? Obama.  Who can't raise money?  Hillary.  Who is breaking records?  Obama.

        It's your candidate who has failed expectations. Mine has met and excelled our hopes.  

        I imagine her as some sort of secret agent dodging bullets and then having professionalism to take media hit rather than reveal things she can't reveal.

        by Inland on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent (0+ / 0-)

    Is it so much to ask that cable news be half this smart?

    Posting a diary on the nomination? Pay your McCain Tax!

    by Seneca Doane on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:02 AM PDT

  •  What will her Oregon persona be? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reid

    Well fancy that, Oregon may be somewhat relevant in this primary for a change.  (May 20th.)  She and her Husband-Surrogate have already managed to alienate a good part of her potential base here.  Of course she has supporters here, but Oregon is likely to vote Obama like our neighbor to the north, Washington.)

    Of course we're one of those non-president-needing "boutique" states according to His Nibs, so it will be curious to see how we may suddenly be spun as relevant.    Wonder what persona she'll adopt, particularly in Portland (which Bush Sr. once called "Little Beirut") -- High Tech Woman, one of the original Computer Users dontcha know?  Will she suddenly Go Clean and Green on us?  Will she partake of a microbrew?  The "Bomb Bomb Iran" song won't play well here at all.

  •  Very Good Diary, Hunter. (0+ / 0-)

    Nice read.  Thanks.  But, there is one explantion that many of you Obama supporters always forget that allows for all these arguements to be made by the Clinton people and that is.....NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO WIN ENOUGH PLEDGED DELEGATES TO CROSS THE FINISH LINE.

    Obama supporters are correct, Clinton CANNOT officially win the nomination with pledged delegates.  But, at the same time, NEITHER CAN OBAMA!!  Therefore, this whole process opens up and can be looked at every which way by the super delegates.  

    Because neither can cross the finish line, popular vote does become a very big issue.  You know how much we democrats learned to love the popular vote after 2000!  ;)  Also, who won early and who is winning late can be a factor to be considered.  Who won the big states can also be a factor.  Which groups make up the candidates voting coalition can be a factor as well as a whole host of other factors.

    So, I do get a little annoyed myself when I hear Obama people spinning and insulting my intelligence by saying how unfair Clinton is and how she is trying to win by changing the rules.  If Barak was able to cross the finish line and win the required # of delegates, this race would be over and there would be nothing Clinton could do about it.  But, he cannot.  Nor can she.  Not without the help of the Supers.  She is breaking no rules.  She is attempting to change no rules.  She is playing by the rules set up by whoever the obviously insane people were who set up this democratic primary process!  Say what you will about the GOP, but at least they have a primary process that is cut and dry.  You win a state, you WIN a state.

    I like Obama.  I will support him if he ends up the nominee.  But, more than ever, I think he is the wrong guy to go up against McCain's life story and the GOP machine and their band of creepy followers that are going to "swift-boat" him like we've never seen before.  Hillary won't say it, but , I will.....I don't think Obama can win in Nov.  Not this time.

    •  I agree with you.. (0+ / 0-)

      what your saying is true, however, there is no way for Hillary to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates. What about caucus votes...do those count in the popular vote count? Are you suggesting that even though more people voted for obama and he has more pledged delegates that the superdelegates should change that?

      What about Florida and Michigan...do you believe she won those states?

      •  no.... (0+ / 0-)

        if Obama ends up with more pledged delegates and wins the popular, i dont see how the Supers can give this to Hillary.  So, in my mind, she cannot catch up in pledged delegates, but she still has a shot a legit shot at the popular votes.  If she can do that, and neither one is able to cross the finish line with pledged delegates, then I think BOTH candidates have legitmate cause to argue they are the best suited to be the nominee.

        FL and MI....I think FL should be counted.  The rules were equal for both...they were both on the ballot and they both did not campaign there.  MI, however is a bit trickier.  But, I do think they need to work out a way to get both states in the democratic fold and step #1 to that end is figure out a way to count their votes!

        So, in effect, in order for this to come to it's rightful conclusion, this MUST play out until the very end.  MI, FL, po vote totals...it all needs time to work itself out.

        And, i think Obama has a chance to come out the stronger candidate if we wait until the end.  If he ends up with delegates and pop vote, the party will rally around him.  But, to end it before it's conclusion, as many Obama supporters have wanted, just leaves the door open for bad blood.

        •  Wrong on FL (0+ / 0-)

          It may feel like the vote was fair in Florida, but it was really not valid.  The lack of campaigning gave an unfair advantage to the most well-known candidate, especially so early in the process.  Why not just eliminate campaigning everywhere if that's fair?  Obama's numbers, of course, always improve after he starts campaigning in a state.

          Secondly, it was known ahead of time by the voters in FL that the vote would not count.  We don't know what effect that had on the turnout and results.

          The only proper way to handle it would be to have a re-vote, but that never happened for whatever reason.  A 50/50 split is also fair, but only because it doesn't pretend that a vote occurred.

    •  Exactly opposite of what I feel... (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think Obama can win in Nov.  Not this time.

      In many more respects than Obama, Hillary looks similar to McVain.

      But that is irrelevant. There are enough leading indicators that no matter who the Democratic candidate is, McVain will be buried with the Republican party in November.

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

      by Suvro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  See Matt Stoller's analysis of MS election (0+ / 0-)

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

      by Suvro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What the Clintonista Shadow on the Wall is REALLY (0+ / 0-)

    telegraphing at us:

    "C'mon all you normal Americans.  Enough of this liberal mutli-racial society CRAP!  Sure, our super-corporate Warfare State liberalism is just for show; you've ALWAYS known that, haven't you?

    "It's TIME for us White Folks to stick together, and put this MLK wannabe back in the ghetto where he belongs!  

    "It's time to GET REAL, and get on with stealing the rest of those Iraqi BROWN people's OIL!

    "Can't you hear those Mau Mau rebel drums beating, just over the next hill?"

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM PDT

  •  Hey there's another state that matters (0+ / 0-)

    The only state that now matters (until voting there is over) is Indiana. Surely, if Obama can't win there, then there's no doubt who 'deserves' the nomination. Yeah, they're reduced to going battle by battle (of course they pick the battles themselves, NC doesn't matter e.g.). They are still clearly losing the war.

  •  I have to disagree... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spekkio

    That is entirely up to Clinton, and any candidate with a mathematical chance -- even if slim -- of pulling out a win has every right to see the race through until that last fateful day.

    Perhaps for the sake of argument one can say that Clinton has every right to stay in, but there is a larger spirit - the final goal of retaking the democracy from the hands of the Republican thugs. At some point, each and every one of us makes the calculation of whether it is better for the common good or not. I would like NOT to pay any of my salary in taxes - but for the greater good I do. I would like to pay for medical care ONLY when I need it - but I pay insurance. What is missing in the Clinton's march towards Denver is any calculus of the greater good of the party, the country, and the world at large. I was a strong Bill Clinton fan, but I am severely disillusioned with the Clintons right now.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by Suvro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:07 AM PDT

  •  Get out of my head! (0+ / 0-)

    You  have stated exactly how I have felt.
    Nothing less then insulted by the spin coming out of the Clinton camp.
    By all means make your argument, but don't insult may intelligence while doing it.

  •  After PA (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary could not bring the numbers to where they were after Mississippi, the last nominating event.

    American patriotism in not an external thing
    It is an eternal, internal thing born and fed by an undeniable faith in our ethos and unquenchable belief in the spirit of progressive humanity that gave birth to the American experiment and fuels it to this day
    me..

  •  Hillary wins despite (0+ / 0-)

    I think the one impressive thing about her win was that she managed to do this despite the fact that the media [and the progressive blogospere] called her campaign dead. I mean, at the end of this she probably won't get the Super Delegates but you have to admit her ability to win by about 10% was not small potatoes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site