But does HRC have it in her to make that change?  Remember the debate when with such gracious she said that no matter what happens each of them, Obama and she, would be alright, only to come out swinging at her nastiest.

And there are a lot of us how almost want her to continue on her self destruct path so that she has no chance in 2012 should Obama lose the general in O8.

Doesn't she just prove over and over just how flawed her judgment is and how nasty her temperament?  But maybe she will get the message.  And who knows whether running a Huckabee campaign would  make the slightest difference in the general in all events.  By then it will be THE ECONOMY, stupid and the Iraq war, stupid... and all the Wright rehash sermons and sound bites and even the attempt to paint Obama as Eugene Debs and a potential Stalin rolled up into one may not make the slightest bit of difference.  It will be:  McCain is decent and a war hero, but he is too old vs.  Obama promises change which we now desperately need... that will be the over arching contest... and this time the race and Swift boating distractions just might not work.

Hey, as the Chicago Tribune said in the run up to our primary here in Illinois, when it mirabile dictu endorsed Obama and McCain in each party's respective primaries, at the least it will be an election between two relatively decent and honest men, however, to quote Obama, imperfect each may be.

The latest chapter in the Texas Two-Step is another sign that the Huckabee route is a good idea.

First, the county caucuses we held yesterday will allow us to finally figure out who won Texas back on March 4. Remember, most of the caucus results were never announced. Early signs show that Obama won the caucuses by enough to take an overall lead in Texas, and in the next day or two that should be confirmed. Obama winning Texas is a major blow to Hillary. Why the national media isn't covering this is beyond me.

Second, I spent all day at our Travis county Dem convention yesterday here in Austin and got more insight into the impact of a drawn out bloody campaign. On the one hand, a lot of social capital is being built among Obama supporters and among Hillary supporters through this process. This should come in handy in November, not to mention other Democratic or progressive or neighborhood causes.

On the other hand, there were too many cases of Obama and Hillary supporters from the same neighborhoods trying to play hardball about choosing delegates for the next round, even though in most cases the eventual outcome was pretty clear. With voters and activists scrapping for every tiny advantage, a lot of ill will is developing, and the Democratic wounds that will have to heal by November become even nastier. As this drags on, it will be harder to get Hillary supporters to donate, knock on doors, etc. for Obama, and probably a few stay home on election day as well.

and if she does the Huckabee route she will certainly have her pick of jobs, vp included. Keep this up and she will spend the remainder of her life as the junior Senator from NY, with her future behind her. In 4 years her base of the elderly will be even less, and there will be a number of other successful women who can run (provided Obama loses), in 8 years his VP will be the presumptive favorite. But if she makes nice she can be one of the most powerful people in america. Majority leader, VP, or Supreme Court justice.

lonestar,

If Obama wins the Texas delegates via caucuses, after losing the poplular vote in the Texas primary, it actually serves to make the case that Obama's wins in caucuses do not really represent voter preferences--which is what Clinton supporters have been saying.

He may get more delegates, but his losses in the big primaries alo look more meaningful.

Yes, Obama "winning" the Texas primary makes the whole process look even more absurd.

For myself, I'd much rather Clinton wipe the floor with Obama. I don't think he can win the presidency under any circumstances, and would actively work to defeat him. But if the Democratic leadership is idiotic enough to give it to him, I'd want him beaten as badly as possible so they don't forget how moronic it is to give the nomination to a liberal.

Never thought I'd see the day when "professionals" urge people to quit.   Not the America I grew up in.   And for what -- who out there would swear they know much of anything about Obama?

pccostello, you forgot to mention Rezko.  I will not tolerate such oversight in the future.

As for Hillary's chances... even making the caucus/primary distinction doesn't increase her chances.  All she can do at this point is hurt the party and Obama, who will become the democratic nominee.  Hopefully someone will talk some sense into her soon - or maybe a miracle will occur and Obama will win PA.

"Majority leader, VP, or Supreme Court justice."

Not a chance.  Even majority leader is unlikely at this point.  The "Hillary for governor" idea is out there, but Rudy lurks.  Maybe New Yorkers would get the cut-throat race they were denied in 2000.  "knee-capping" is just the thing in the Empire State.

Isaac, let me suggest you take a break for a few days. Your ideas are sincerely put but bull. And David Brooks is an idiot.

I feel funny saying this but David Brooks has been making a lot of sense lately.  Not the usual conservative dogma couched in liberal speak.  I think his point is a good one and may in fact be the route Hillary is now taking (doubt even she is taking professor gate seriously).  If this is indeed the case then someone needs to tell party big wigs to stop calling for her to drop out since that will only serve to alienate the very large constituency that is currently supporting her and will need to support Obama in the general.

Even if Obama wins in PA, she'll just push the context to the next stage.

However, it doesn't make much sense to urge her to pull out at this stage... it would not look good for obama.

jmkerr may be correct that Obama can't win the general because too little is really known about him.  By the same token, neither can HRC win the General anymore.  She really has pissed off too many stalwart Dems of whatever color.

So get ready for McCain in '08... unless of course, the economy is even worse and Iraq is not better... then it will be It is the Economy AND the War, stupid and we'll see if people don't come to think that perhaps McCain is just too old for so stress filled a job and too tied to Republicans who got us into these messes and perhaps enough people will be willing to take a flyer on an appeal to "our better angels."  After all it isn't exactly as if people like Ted Kennedy, Casey, Richardson are all political novices just taken in by Obama's charm... something is abrewing and if it isn't this election, it will be the next one, if not for Obama, then for something other than the political stalemates and race baiting and No Nothingness we have had for way too long.

The very fact that the whole Tuzla business was originated not by the mainstream media, but by the youggins on YouTube speaks volumes about "viral" change that is happening from the ground up.

Hillary represents Baby Boomer liberalism. It is a form of liberalism that cannot move beyond the politics of race, gender and partisanship. It is a form of liberalism that thrives off of presenting itself as being a “victim”: A victim of “the boys,” a victim of “the party establishment, which is trying to pressure me to withdraw.” It is a form of liberalism that gains strength by shedding tears for itself.

Hillary has earned the right to play out her hand, even if it's a longshot, and see if she can run the table on the remaining primaries.  If she can achieve a decisive momentum in this final stage of the primary process, she might have an argument to make to the superdelegates.  For that reason, I view the current efforts to get her to drop out now or relax her campaign as futile and counter-productive.

However, after June 3rd, the race will be done with no more primaries remaining.  If she has lost Pennsylvania or North Caolina or Indiana and has no winning streak or momentum, it may be time for her to reassess her situation, perhaps with a nudge from the superdelegates.  In that event, her supporters will have less reason to feel cheated.

Now is not that time.

The odd thing about Texas is that, according to electoral-vote.com, Obama polls better than Hillary against McCain in a general election match-up, and by better, I mean he's statistically tied. If that continues---big "if"---that may force McCain to expend resources in what was once the stalwart bastion of the Republican party and what would become the largest swing state in the country. As soon as this game is a game of resources, McCain loses and Obama (or Hillary, before pcc flames me, but she does not do well in the Texas general election polls) wins.

Hillary is in it to stay if for no other reason than she needs to pay off campaign debts and can't raise enough money with a laid back approach.  She has to be seen as all in, or no one will give her the millions needed.  Still, I would happily donate to her upon announcing a withdrawal...

jm, work to defeat BO because he's liberal?  I'm assuming tongue in cheek, but if not, I find HRC's positions, albeit similar, as slightly more liberal (e.g. mandates, mortage 'freeze', etc.)

guyminuslife,

To my knowledge, in the past 6 weeks or so, there has been one poll showing Obama statistically tied with McCain in TX and 4 polls showing McCain leading with leads of 7 or more.  See www.fivethirtyeight.com

Texas isn't off the table in the sense that, say, Alabama is off the table, but it looks like a long shot at this point.

"Never thought I'd see the day when "professionals" urge people to quit."

Then perhaps you haven't been paying attention. We're talking about professional politicians. This isn't about Hillary, and it's not about sexism. It's about winning the White House. Huckabee was asked to quit, too, for the good of his party. So have many other candidates over the years. The party, and the agenda, comes before your personal ambitions. It's the way the game is played.

It's _professional_.

Ms. Cottle: Your articles in TNR have been pro-Obama, so your offering advice in terms of political strategy to Senator Clinton is quite funny. I'd like to say just one thing -- do your own research into "the fact that the Wright controversy has barely caused a blip in the polls'. Half-life periods for media narratives are ever shorter these days, but you and others in the main stream media are ignoring the trust, judgement and character issues this has raised about Senator Obama's fitness to be President. I, for one, would like to think that the American people, my fellow country men (and women) are going to soon recognize Senator Obama for the ruthless, opportunistic and somewhat mendacious politician that he is. Of course his opponent in the current primary, and Senator McCain may be no better -- but there's a wealth of data at thomas.loc.gov if you care to look and see for yourself how these candidates have spent their time in elected office.

AlanSP:

No, I don't seriously think that Texas is actually going to be much in play. I was just sort of shocked when I saw that poll---for what it's worth, I don't really trust it. I hadn't checked out the other polls but my sense is that this was just a piece of static on the radar.

Nonetheless, I recall that before the state was gerrymandered by my wonderful ex-congressman Tom DeLay, we had an equal number of Democratic and Republican members of Congress (not counting Kay Bailey and that prick Cornyn). I also recall that presidential election results in Texas have been favorable for Republicans since 1980---the only election a Bush hasn't been on the ballot was 1996, and the spread was around five points. (Granted, Clinton was doing well anyway.) We've had a large influx of northerners fleeing the Rust Belt since then, and of course our voting Hispanic population is always growing, so it's not entirely inconceivable that this state will be up for grabs---maybe not in this election, but in the near future.

I'm excited about living in a world where the Tuzla tall tale resonates more with Democratic voters than sitting fro 20 years in the pew of  a church run by a pastor who blames 9/11 and the AIDS crisis on th American government. Good times!

If we really wanted to maximize our chances of winning the WH this year, then we would have nominated a solid, exceptionally well-qualified old hand like Biden.

Or that former VP who alone at this point could unite the party and avert what's increasingly looking like a true Democratic fraggy clusterf*** that will result in our defeating ourselves, yet again, when all we had to do was focus on economics and mute the kulturkampf and identity politics crap.

Superdelegates, nominate Gore. Don't piss this thing away yet again.

teplukhin2you: I share your frustration, but Gore is not the answer. And wait -- you are hoping the SuperSheep will provide the way out here?! You've got to be kidding. You are completely correct that we (Democrats) have messed up, and in fact I am not surprised that the young and the rich (Obama's base of support) do not easily admit to mistakes -- because of choice-hardening bias, much less the press (gasp), SNL not-withstanding. It is our own fault that we did not vet Senator Obama soon enough. I don't know if Biden or Todd (who others have suggested) would have done better -- in this media and blog-driven age, 'boring' does not cut it. After all, Kerry was what we thought was a solid, exceptionally well-qualified old hand, and look what happened to him! So in a sense, we'll have to make do with Obama (or if a miracle should occur, Clinton) -- and prepare for a nasty Fall election.  Personally speaking, I wish we'll use the next four years to reform our primary and caucus processes as well -- since I don't think they have served us well.

The Democratic party is finally nominating someone with political talent instead of a wonk and some of the above are busy grieving.  McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Kerry, Gore.  A litany of failure, and you are nostalgic.  

Bill Clinton had way more skeletons in his closet than Obama and not a great deal more political experience.  He defeated a sitting president who had won a popular war only a short time before.  If you think Obama is a weak candidate, you have missed the past 50 years of American political life.  

Hillary Clinton's strategy is easily understandable. She is trying to deny Obama a first ballot nomination. Once she does that (and he just needs to miss by one delegate), all bets are off. Then, the real horsetrading will begin. As far as I know, no talking head or journalist has mentioned this (and it betrays a incredible lack of knowledge about the nominating system).

If the Democatic party had logical primary rules where the winner takes all,  Hillary Clinton would have won the primary in February.  She has taken all the big states.  The system as it stands now gave Obama the same number of delegates for winning Wyoming with 2,500 votes as Hillary got for winning Ohio with 300,000 votes.  Very democratic isn't it?  This is how Democrats guarantee their own defeat.  Obama won't win in November, but the Democratic lemmings keep following their incompetent leadership right over the cliff.

The growing clamor for Hillary Clinton to exit the primary race grew a bit louder these last few days.

myskylark....yes the fact that Wyoming's 2,500 votes carries the same weight, delegate wise, as Ohio's 300,000 votes is that it's weighted proportionally and ensures that every state counts. By your standards, and every Hillary supporter and the campaign, the only states whose delegates should count are the states Hillary won for the democratic primary. Well that argument holds water if the election ended at the Democratic convention. But since she has to run in every state including those purple states she claims don't count well then you can write off a democratic majority that is nation wide not just concentrated on the coasts. But then...it appears that is the Hillary strategy. Only concentrate on solid democratic states and forget the rest of the nation where democrats have made inroads in historically republican areas including the interior west, south and mid-west. A winner take all ensures the marginalization and disenfranchisement of all those states whose primaries don't effect the outcome. You want fair? Make every state party primary the same day.

Not 2,500 votes. 2,500 caucus-attendees. If you were so distressed about the caucuses, you should have changed them to primaries before this election cycle. Because that didn't happen, crying unfair now and claiming that caucuses count for less because fewer people were involved is just dishonest.

Hillary knew the rules. She blew it. She should have spent more money organizing in the caucus states, but she thought she would have it won by Super Tuesday. That's the mistake that has turned a nearly tied race in terms of voter percentages into an almost certain loss for her. Just don't try to blame it on someone else by calling it unfair.

Josh Marshall has the clearest explanation I've seen for why, David Brooks's (and Isaac's

"Gore is not the answer /

For all in love can con-quer haa -aate..."

myskylark writes, "...The system...gave Obama the same number of delegates for winning Wyoming with 2,500 votes as Hillary got for winning Ohio with 300,000 votes...This is how Democrats guarantee their own defeat."

This is the kind of math Democrats also apply to health care and all their other giveaways of public funds.  Once again Democrats' good intentions create disaster.  Fortunately, this time, it's only for themselves.