It's so frustrating that Clinton is so successful at convincing people that only certain contests matter and others don't. Whether she likes the format or not, it's not like there's some magic that favors Obama there, except, well, he's better organized. How is that not important for a general election candidate?

I was involved in the Washington Democratic Caucuses.  The only people going for Hillary were "white successful women" types, everyone else was for Obama.

Because it doesn't follow the standardized script that Obama somehow doesn't have the organizational skills to actually be president.  

How can he continue to do well?  Oh, it must be the oratory.  It must be the wealthy Starbucks types.  Certainly he doesn't have any good ideas.  Or detailed plans.  Etc, etc.

Oh, its all abject nonsense.  

Senator Clinton will downplay any result that doesn't go her way.  I understand that, but it is unseemly that she will find every excuse possible to find a way to explain away each of her losses.  I find this to be a rather troubling trend, that she simply cannot be self-reflective enough to ever cop to a failing, a mistake, a loss.  

Winners win, losers argue about whether the other guy's victories really count.

Picking up on what you said, kgrant, I really wish that Obama would trumpet his management skills in running this campaign.  He made an off-hand comment about it when he made that joke about Romney, but I think it's a point in his favor that someone so politically inexperienced has run such a great campaign, raising so much money, having such good organization (and the moral high ground). It answers some concerns that Hillary raised about his ability to manage bureaucracies.

epicciuto, kgrant, that's been something that's been bothering me for several weeks.  Clinton has been preparing for this election for years, with the aid a former president adored by millions, and for most of the time, with the full weight of the Democratic establishment behind her.  Then a freshman senator comes along, spends about a year and half organizing an insurgent campaign, and suddenly has built a political machine so potent that "of course" Hillary can't be expected in caucuses.

And managing organizations in supposed to be his weakness?! If only we could find more candidates with weaknesses like that!

But I have barely seen this mentioned in the media.  They've been so busy talking about his charisma and oratory that I think they're missing an even bigger story.  

We should keep posting comments about this until someone at TNR notices and writes an article.

Agreed.  Perhaps one of the intrepid staff can begin to dig into the necessary organization to do so well, and in so many different states, in the caucuses.  My guess is that it takes a bit of work to make sure that you have the necessary people directing traffic, and encouraging folks to work through the sometimes bewildering process.  Being able to produce that kind of commitment on a regular basis says something about Obama and the team around him.  

Noam, Josh, Jason, Michelle, and the rest of the gang, you folks want to look into this?  There is some meat here to chew on, might be something to contemplate.  Might even be connected to the whole issue of raising money, no?

It seems like a lot of the tools the Obama folks have brought to bear would be worth taking a closer look at. I mean, when I first saw it on the Obama site virtual phonebanking struck me as both simple and brilliant, it saves the campaign money, gets more calls made, makes volunteering much much easier and facilitates a higher pick-up rate (sorry I did some telephone soliciting back in college),

Devolving all those organizational tools and skills also strikes me as an excellent way to build the party. I can't help thinking that win or lose the Obama campaign is going to mint a lot of 24 to 30 year olds who know how win a congressional district.

You guys are right, someone needs to write something somewhere about exactly how they've done all of this.  

Intrade has Obama at 64.2% to win the nomination. That's up 6 points tonight.

I went to a WA caucus today in Seattle and ended up a delegate. I will add to fwslusser's observation about successful white women - particularly older ones - to say that there were quite a few of those for Obama as well, and also Clinton had some gay men.  My precinct went 6-1 for Obama. Everyone was polite. Nobody in our group said Obama was shallow or inexperienced, or that Clinton was a lying fearmonger. And the conversation snowballed in a nice way, from people not wanting to talk at all, and only one guy volunteering to be a delegate, to almost everyone talking, and 12 people volunteering to be delegates. The ability to unify and inspire was a big seller among the Obama supporters. Also, several people preferred Obama's health care plan because they didn't want mandates - not because it had a better chance of passing.  The one Hillary guy who spoke up was all about "universal coverage" and left it with that. The only explicit criticism of Clinton concerned her divisiveness, and the few people who mentioned it almost passed it off as an unfortunate accident of history, or not really her fault.

I'm not so sure that Clinton is that successful convincing anyone of the triviality of races she loses.

She tries, but the whole shtick brings out the worst in her (sense of entitlement, the inability to gracefully accept defeat or speak the unvarnished truth), which seems to only drive voters away from her. She has enormous ability and strengths, but losing well is not one of them - it's a sign of wisdom not too many have in all fairness, me included.  I admire her competitive spirit, I always have, but it can also be very wise strategically to admit when you're beat fair and square.  Everyone admires that.  

The numbers in WA alone speak volumes.  She's been beaten by any definition. Maybe she convinces some in the media that these wins aren't important or representative, but I'm more convinced every day that the disconnect between the party muckety muck/media establishment of both parties and the American people is as glaringly pronounced as I've seen it in my lifetime.

I'm completely on Hillary's side in the "pimping Chelsea" furor - her mama bearness is well known and always just lovely to see. I hope she sticks to her guns about the debate - it would show her in her best light, rather than her worst, like these losses today.

where do you see Clinton convincing anyone that caucuses don't matter?  Obama won states he was expected to win, and yet the reporting was very much "obama sweeps."  And caucuses should be somewhat discounted--it's great that he has been able to organize the caucus states so much, but they generally represent the most activist wing of the party--hard to argue that his wins in caucuses such as  Nebraska, Kansas, or Idaho is predictive of anything for November...

I mean this question totally ingenuously: what was wrong with the "pimping Chelsea out" comment? I ask this not because I don't think there's anything wrong with it; it's that I honestly don't know what's wrong with it. Wandrey, I agree with you that Hillary qua mom is probably her most appealing quality. But I'm not sure why it was needed here. Is it because he is implicitly calling Chelsea Clinton a whore? I take "pimping out" much less literally than that, and usable for males or females in obviously non-sexual situations, but am I missing something? Do other people take it more literally than I do? Is it because it implies Chelsea was unwilling to campaign for her mom but was guilt-tripped or strong-armed? I honestly don't know!

I think "pimping Chelsea out" at the very least means forcing her into campaigning when she didn't want it, and that above and beyond that it has the same kind of sexist overtones as "nappy-headed hos" has racist and sexist overtones. Imus's comment wasn't meant literally either, after all, but many think it's insensitive to buy into a kind of rap-music one-size-fits-all sexist banter. Others think its way cool to be sexist as long as you mean only mild insult, and not mild sexism. They think it's stupid to call them on their coolness. Everyone has to decide.

I hear you epicciuto - I agree that logically it wasn't so bad.

But the part I liked was that someone saying the word "pimp" and "Chelsea" in the same sentence brought out the real Hillary - Hillary unplugged, screw the logic, it's such a rare snapshot of her real self, I think most people would love to see more.  I would love to see her pound the podium in rage at don't ask, don't tell (yeah, I know - hubby invented it, but still), or cry in anger at Walter Reed - with no fear of being called names by Rush Limbaugh - just pure uncalculating emotion, the good the bad and the ugly. I'm sure the double standard would kick in, but so would respect at some level.

Most Mom's are like that, most parents as a matter of fact.  We go Sopranos on people pretty quickly if we so much as don't like the *associations* you use in sentences with our kids in them, let alone *tone.*  Besides, it wasn't fair - so what if Chelsea is stumping for her Mom for God's sake - to make in into something nefarious and ugly is expected of course - it's part of the game, but everyone knows you live by the sword, you can die by it to.   NBC died by it.  Point Hillary.

Hillary unplugged in  the best possible, IMHO:

"Dear Mr. Capus,

Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.

I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.

However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton"

epic, I hated that statement. You know I hate the Clintons but that is totally unfair to Chelsea. She has the right to support her mother without being dissed because of it. The only question I have is is she still being paid 6 figures in her job while she is out campaigning? If she is on an unpaid leave of absence, then I have absolutely no criticism of her that I can say. If she is getting paid, then I have to wonder about the company that hired her and what they expect in return. Otherwise, unless she personally does something noteworthy (get drunk and strip on the mall, becomes a nun, etc.) leave her be.

sprechs, your criticism is with caucuses. If you don't like them, that is fine, but a win is a win in the delegate race. She can't go to the convention saying her delegates count more because they are from primaries (or big states). But if she can rack up more delegates by focusing more on big state primaries, then good for her. At the end, whoever has more runs wins, whether they be from home runs (big state primaries) or singles (small state caucuses)

nice wandrey.

A few posts ago epicciuto mentioned how little Obama's amazing organizational skill is being covered.  I agree - look at the results too!  Wow.  I remember he said somewhere along the line "If you wonder about my organizational skills, please judge me on the campaign I run."

OK, done.  He's run circles around the top name in the business.

Blackie, chess, wandrey, I really meant it when I said I didn't understand how the comment was offensive. It was not because I saw how it was supposed to be offensive and disagreed, but honestly because I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure if it was because 1) the phrase "pimping out" had worse connotations than I thought, or 2) that one shouldn't assume that the Clintons had pressured her into voting.

Maybe it's the uncouth company I keep, but "pimping out" is used casually, and in nonsexual situations (as is "whoring" for that manner, as in something like "McCain is whoring himself for the conservative vote by cozying up to the religious right," or "Katie Holmes is pimping out her child by charging the tabloids $1 million for exclusive photos," etc.). "Ho," in my experience, is only used pejoratively to women. So since I'd never heard "pimp out" used in a similar manner to "ho," I didn't take his statement as offensive. If it generally does have that meaning, in more couth company, then I do see it as offensive.

And I do agree that it seems silly to second-guess her motivations for campaigning. She's 27, not 12. One might presume that she could resist parental pressure, if she wanted. I don't remember anyone asking that about Karenna Gore. However, that's not offensive to me so much as ridiculous.

About caucuses not being accurate gages because they only are a measure of the most dedicated [or unemployed] among us - yeah, it would stand to reason, but when you factor in the size of the crowds at rallies, I think it really is not just a bunch of obsessives like me showing up at the Melrose Terrace Apts. common area who support Obama.  And - speaking for WA here - turnout for this caucus is around twice what it was four years ago, and there was a real fight between Kerry and Dean here then. This time it was an overwhelming crush of people, exceeding fire-code capacity in some places. That feels like a measure of something beyond just itself.

Over at TPM they are debating whether Senator Clinton wanted Shuster fired.  What is the thinking of the folks here?

If she did want him fired, is that not going a bit far.  Yes, I fully understand the desire to protect one's own children at all costs (I have two - 12 and 5).  Still, can you really move to the point where you are dictating hiring and firing at news outlets?  Does that not start to get into some dodgy territoriy, as it feels like you are trying to shape their broadcasts?  MSNBC may have some serious gits about (Matthews being the first in line), but they also have some rather fierce defenders of constitutional freedoms (Olbermann and his highly charged 'Special Comments' being the best example), and I wonder about the kind of environment that a firing would create, especially a firing at the behest of a politicial candidate.

Was the comment tasteless?  Yep.  Did the Clinton's have every right to call Shuster everything in the book?  Yep.  Was it appropriate to suspend him?  Indeed.  But it is not appropriate for a politician to call for someone to get sacked.   It is not their call.  If they want to inveigh against the network and all of the assorted things you can say about such foolishness, go for it.  To ask for his dismissal?  Too much.

Yeah kgrant - but more people love a Mom who goes too far in her Momma-bearishness than not.  I'm a kool-aid drinking Obamatron of the first order, and those slit eyed pictures of Hillary angry at MSNBC make me just plain love her - which is a miracle in itself (I am not known to love Hillary, to put it mildly).

Welcome to the mess of gender stuff.  Sorry!

"A bellwether for Oregon"?!?

Vacuous (and typical).

Does anyone else recall someone on MSNBC making a similar comment about Meghan McCain's blogette routine? Didn't seem like a big deal then, doesn't seem like one now. I mean, no one suspended that guy at Fox who asked Ted Kennedy if he was worried that comparing Obama to his brothers might get him [Obama] shot.