By the way... I was told recently in Indiana that those HRC rallies that seem full of people are full because HRC backers are telling their municipal employees that they have to fill the hall... or else.

Oh... and that was from such an employee... who also said, that they couldn't quite fill up the hall, but did their darnest to come close.  They had no choice.  Hey... as the employee said... that's politics and city jobs.

That's all true, but her poll numbers are sliding anyway. It really does come back to the question as to what her odds actaully are of winning. They're pretty small and diminishing. yes, the worse the odds get, the more destructive/nuclear she has to get.

But that raises the question of how nuclear she will get to preserve a small chance of winning? And what does that do to the rest of her public career? She's pi$$ed off a whole generation of young independents and dems. If Obama loses the general, she'll rightly or wrongly get part of the blame. If anything the uptick in her aggressive and administrative tactics have hastened her slide in public appraisal.

She won't be president (p < .05). She's got a very quickly diminishing chance to be senate leader. She's probably blown up her VP shot. Bill's really hurt his presidential legacy. I don't know what she wants to do if she doesnt' get the nomination, but she really needs to think about it, and about whether a 2% chance of being the nominee is worth throwing it away.

So going down ugly is not beneath her dignity.

If, God forbid, she should be successful in her attempt to define reality by her discourse, what lesson will she have learned? This is precisely what I find so discouraging about her campaign -- in what meaningful way is it any different from the cynical rhetoric of the Bush administration, the belief that crying "WMDs" and "mission accomplished" makes it so? What makes anyone think she will use language for anything other than a power play?

Annabella2, that's also happening in PA. Increasingly, her campaign consists of AFSCME "volunteers" doing the ordinary campaign scutwork (phone banking, canvassing, etc.) that other campaigns use local walk-in volunteers to do, punctuated by AFSCME-organized rallies attended primarily by AFSCME "volunteers" and national staffers posing as local voters. The last few weeks, anyone watching video of a Hillary event could be forgiven for thinking that her campaign color is green and her slogan is "AFSCME."

To wit:

cache.daylife.com/.../610x.jpg

I recognize two faces in the background from AFSCME's Washington, DC professional staff.

@let:  exactly, this is why I think there was a big hit on the Tuzla thing.  She thought she was safly redefining reality, and even after video surfaced, tried to talk people into thinking it was more dangerous than it was.  When people realized they had been watching this kind of thing for 7 1/2 years, they were turned off.  It hits at the disillusioned Indies and mod Reps, this is not what they are signing up for.

"And so we have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president."

So why isn't this more focused on her personality issues of never being wrong, never loosing, never being less than entitled to this nomination?  Absolutely correct that she'll continue to up the ante until her campaign implodes.  (She's for universal health care, but they aren't paying the premiums for her own staffers!  I think the implosion isn't that far away!)  The senior folks are crying politely for her to just go away, but she can't do that.  It's simply not an option for her.  

y'all keep cycling through this loop that goes, Hillary can't win, Hillary needs to quit, Hillary won't quit, therefore Hillary's wicked, because she's wicked, she can't win....

Here's a way to break this cycle. Obama needs to reach out, seriously and honestly, to Hillary's base and others whose support forms the core of her conviction that she has to keep on fighting: white older women and working-class voters in the exurbs and manufacturing towns. Obama needs to stop speaking to his adoring fan club, tone down the BS, and start saying to these people, "I hear you, I understand your concerns, if you support me instead of Hillary you can be certain that your concerns will be top of mind in my campaign this fall and in my presidency."

I know it's more fun to stage tent revivals and raves in stadiums where your fans applaud you even when you cough, but the presidency's worth rolling up your sleeves and going in to the heart of Hillary's base. It's not that hard, now, is it? Especially when you're as giftedbrilliantmercurialcharmingindefatigablecharismatic as Obama is said to be.

If Obama wants to be 2008's Reagan, then he should learn how to modestly, pleasantly encourage his rivals' supporters to, as Reagan said to blue-collar Dems, "take a walk."

Of course, that requires taking some risks and dispensing with the we-are-the-change-we-seek horsesh*t, giving straight talk to ordinary people on their home turf, convincing people that he's real rather than another identity politics candidate...

Tep- from what I hear his bus tour through PA is more toward what you are suggesting than his earlier approach.

mice, yeah, he went bowling for chrissake, and looked the fool doing it to, but luckily he has enough of a sense of humour about himself to pull it off, myself I would have spent the night before practicing, even so I still would probably suck with all those cameras around me.

one thing you are wrong about (at least according to Slate) her chances are now 9.7%, much higher than your 2%. ha.

my family in Pa. tells me that all they hear and see are Obama commercials.

You guys.  Give it a rest.  Let the primaries play out.  And let the best man win.

No kibbutzing from the sidelines is going to modify the behavior of the participatns.  They don't give a damn what you think, or the pundits thing.  Or anybody except people giving them money think.

Hillary and Obama will play the game the way the feel like they can get away playing it.  (Nobody complained when Obama sent a phalanx of lawyers to make sure there was no proper vote in FL or MI.)

Obama himself gave the best statement and made the best policy on this today.  Hillary is welcome and free to stay in the game until she either runs out of money or gets the votes.  Or he does.

This is the political equivalent of "Are we there yet?"  All the pundits and bloggers sound like a buncha six year olds.

tep's on the money. Obama may think he has a lock on the nomination, but if he doesn't run like hell and do whatever it takes to secure the prize, he will probably lose it in the end.

Tep: I think you are right on the money about Obama not conceding Hillary's supporters, but directly reaching out to them and talkng to them. Excellent point. Doesn't need to ask Hillary's permission. Its the right thing to do and good politics. Clearly he's now "got" the white working folks in mind. Why not Hillary's base with elders and women?

Obama has this in him. Interestingly, so does Hillary. Neither of them is afraid to walk into any room anywhere with anybody(within reason of course) for votes. This kind of counter-intiuitive politics is what Obama learned from Harold Washington, who spent plenty of time in pretty down-home Irish and Polish bars with guys who didn't vote for him. And this is a key Obama thing: He doesn't seem to demonize his enemies. I think this is what interests and attracts people like Mark McKinnon, McCain's chief media guy and offers hope that is beyond ideology, not in terms of policy but in terms of respect.

Among things I like least about Clinton is her self-serving narcissism. But Obama has his own self-worship problem and at some point it will turn people off. I don't expect Hillary to change spots, but Obama must be willing to lose some of his preening aren't I great attitude. I'm getting tired of it. If he loses Pennsylvania by as much as has been talked about it will be because he hasn't got the message yet, and it will cost him even more if he can't humble down by the fall.

Also pleased to see Josh M. getting out front in terms of sorting this out for our understanding. For those not familiar with his work, which is outstanding: www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Interesting Kentucky poll by Survey USA (as of today):

Hill = 60%

Obama = 29%

www.surveyusa.com/.../PollReportPopup.aspx

The cross-tabs tell a very interesting story.

Hillary will run until Hillary can't run.  She will do whatever she can to win, including trying to kneecap Obama, whenever she thinks it enhances her chances to do so.  The only thing that restrains her is the fact that, so far, these tactics have largely backfired, hurting her own standing more than his.  

With due respect to Chan, once the last two big primaries are over and it is clear that the remaining primaries cannot change the outcome in terms of pledged delegates or popular votes (both of which will be a majority in favor of Obama the "threats" of various posters notwithstanding) there will be no downside to the supers declaring and I expect that they will.  And, as I am getting tired of hearing myself say, they are not going to decide contrary to the outcome of the primaries in both delegates and votes.  If there were a split, then the outcome might be in doubt, but there will not be a split.  Anyone who has ever held or run for elective office would understand why that is so.  A given politician might at some point take a stand on principle that is contrary to the clearly expressed will of the electorate.  The idea that several hundred of them are going to do that at the same time is, frankly, absurd.  The only thing that would change the outcome would be if Obama were for some reason tanking in the public opinion polls and HIllary is not.  In that case, the supers would likely feel compelled to conclude that they should vote in accordance with current public opinion, the primary votes being out of date due to the length of th primary season.  But that isn't even remotely happening.  Obama is slowly drawing away from Hillary in public opinion.  Accordingly, by mid-May we should expect the supers to declare their intentions and decide the nominee.  Once they can do it without seeming to deny the remaining voters the chance to change the outcome, they will, not least to spare the party more of Hillary.

That's the practical reality.  Meanwhile, just as Hillary has the "right" to run, the rest of us have the right to criticize her savagely for putting her own remote interests ahead of those of the party.  If she could run a la Huckabee, okay, but, as explained here, she can't and won't.  So we should punish her for punishing us.  We have as much or more or a right and obligation to do so as she does to continue.  Our right is enshrined in the Constitution.  Hers isn't.  Hers is just an artifact of Democratic party rules.

So, I say, have at it until Clinton's political career is dead and buried.  She deserves nothing less than to have the respect she shows us repaid in kind.

Remeber Tuzla!

uhhh, what's interesting about that scottlooper?  Do you think that by the time the KY primary rolls around anyone is going to care about a possible delegate margin of 10 for Hillary?  Do you think anyone cares now?

The Clintonites are so very picky about which polls are "interesting."

I remember back to the heady days of about a week ago when the Gallup daily tracking poll was all the rage with HRC's backers. Now that Obama has opened up a 10-point lead over here there, you really don't hear that much about the Gallup daily tracking poll as you used to. Weird.

But today we're analyzing the crosstabs in a Kentucky poll, a primary that's seven weeks off. Kentucky, which is a state that the GOP likely will carry in November regardless of who the Dem nominee is. I remember a time when red states didn't count in the Dem primary race. I guess some of them still don't, but others do. Kentucky - there's your bellwether!

roid, you needn't accord me any due respect (which is always a polite way of saying the other guy isn't due any).  It is the voters who must receive their due.

As you said yourself, Pennsylvania and nine other states have not spoken yet.  You may have a good guess about how those states will go (like those guesses about New Hampshire, back in the day two months ago) but neither you or anyone else knows for certain.

And, although it is getting to be a very long shot, Florida and  Michigan's Democratic establishments may yet be shamed into have a proper vote.  Obama's people managed to help scotch that, so he isn't exactly Jesus.

Meanwhile, after all the votes have been cast, it is also likely that neither candidate will have enough votes to nail the nomination.  

So then what do they do?  Why, they go to the Convention.  As it has usually been done since Time Immemorial.  Or, at least since fairly early in the 19th Century.

Then the delegates and the Super Delegates will hash it all out.  A lot of it on the floor.  But, maybe some of it in smoke filled rooms.

And, since Obama is still an unknown man, some new scandal, perhaps even worse than Rev Wright will pop out of the basement.

Or, Hillary and Bill being altogether too well known, may generate yet one more whopper.  Or Bill's zipper will come undone.  Who knows with Democrats, anything is possible.

I do know one thing, anyone else in Hillary's place, sainted or otherwise, would not be throwing in the towel under the present circumstances.  That would be nuts.  And that person would for as long as American political history was told, be castigated as a loser and a quitter.

Hillary may be a loser.  But, she sure is hell is not a quitter.

"Hillary may be a loser. But, she sure is hell is not a quitter."

Her failure to quit the race to date does not mean she's not a quitter. It means she hasn't run out of money yet. As soon as she runs out of money, with no realistic prospects for raising sufficient funds to pay the most essential bills -- which for Hillary probably means television/radio ads and automated phone calls, rather than trifles like payroll or debts to small-business suppliers or staff health insurance -- she will "suspend" her campaign. Could be next week, could be in June, or maybe America's liberal white Boomer women are suckers enough to keep funding Hillary all the way to the convention. But the point is that the timing of her exit from the race has not been and will not be dictated by questions of character or integrity. It will be dictated by cold hard cash, or specifically the absence thereof. As it is for all primary campaigns.

Rhubarbs writes, "...But the point is that the timing of her exit from the race has not been and will not be dictated by questions of character or integrity. It will be dictated by cold hard cash, or specifically the absence thereof. As it is for all primary campaigns."

I can't believe I have to spend so much time defending Hillary actions.  But, Rhub, there hasn't been a politician in the history of the primaries who quit because of their "character and integrity".  Certainly not when they're within  100 votes or so of their rival.

Yeah, of course she'll quit if she runs out of money.   That's what it means when any of them quit.  But, as long as she's got a reasonable shot (which she still does, because this isn't just about your 100 vote math) and she's got the scratch, she'll stay in.

As would anybody else in her situation.

It delighted me to see him completely suck at bowling, grinning throughout, and not caring. And then there's Chris Matthews, chiding him for doing something he's not good at. The other talking heads bleated "but he's supposed to be very good at basketball!" and CM repeated that he never should have done this if he wasn't good at it. What is it with guys? Would you have preferred that he approach this bowling thing with the seriousness of a debate or speech? If I had seen that it would have frightened me. For real. I like a guy who can have fun, and not take himself so dead seriously about something - I'm sorry: BOWLING - that is just silly in this context. I would imagine Mitt Romney doing it that way, dead serious, jaw clenched, and berating himself under his breath if he missed some pins. Please.

Chan, that's exactly what I meant when I said "As it is for all primary campaigns."

Not sure how you read that as a particular condemnation of Hillary.

Rhub, apparently I'm reading too fast and missed a critical phrase.

Guess I wouldn't have made a good contract lawyer.

yes, psantillana, Obama is that rarity in US politics, a man who's completely comfortable in his own skin. Far and away the most attractive thing about him.

Now if he could just present himself as he is, one of a kind, as a truly national candidate, and ditch  all the identity-politics BS....

tep, I think that identity-politics BS does not come from him, but swirls in his wake like some nasty - what is the word? Scrum? Chum? - just the fact of his race brings it out in other people like some poultice or leech or mud mask, and if it could then be purged, then that would be great, but time will tell. But it was there in other people before he came along, and I do think that the much-derided "conversation about race" will just have to take place and flush this crap out. It's not going to be the easiest conversation [the - uh - release of toxins is often quite unpleasant], but it's lurching along in ugly fits and starts and hopefully we can wrestle this gremlin to the ground and - oh lard, I'm out of metaphors.

But that is not his fault, and a huge part of his comfortableness is the result of an intentional wrestling with this in his own life, with successful result.