If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.  And Clinton would win.

This reminds me of the whole Texas firewall debate where the Clinton campaign called Texas her firewall and then it was very apparent that they had no idea how the hybrid Texas model actually favored Obama. I just don't get it. Did Team Clinton not bother with learning how the primaries worked? Did they just assume Super Tuesday was going to be enough? These alternative histories of how something would favor you if the rules were changed are classic magical thinking in action.

I have some property in Tuzla I'd like to sell Wilentz.

Sean Wilentz has revealed himself to be completely intellectually bankrupt on this issue. He had damn well better be friends with the Clintons, because that at least would be an excuse.

I hope you all don't pubish any more assinine arguments from him about this issue. Two is plenty for TNR.

Invite Sean Astin to write something.

Jonathan Chait writes:

-- Yet all the rules were understood and agreed to by both candidates in advance.

I'm not convinced Clinton understood all the rules in advance - I seem to remember reading that Team Clinton has been surprised by voting rules in Texas and, I believe, Pennsylvania. I guess that's the problem of basing a strategy on a decisive blow-out on Super Tuesday - you don't really care about voters going to the polls after that day and then you can't care enough.

That Hillary's campaign (and its surrogates) would even think of ex post facto excuses like this should in itself be sufficient to disqualify her from the nomination. The Electoral College will absolutely destroy any Democratic campaign that is not up to the job of playing by eccentric electoral rules.

Besides, given her move to overturn the democratic process in North Dakota (and presumably elsewhere), Hillary has made clear she doesn't want a winner-take-all system. She wants a loser-take-all system.

ndmackenzie:

I fear that your reasoning is going to be the next excuse proffered by our friend pccostello:  It's not fair that Hillary should be held accountable to rules that she didn't bother to learn!  VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!!

To preempt this, might I suggest that Chait's sentence should be amended to read "[y]et all the rules were set...in advance".

Sadly, I'm only half joking about this.

I think Wilentz's argument is that the winner-take-all system is more American (i.e., it matches the Electoral college) not that it's more democratic.  He argues that it therefore would have been a preferable system.

His primary "fairness" argument goes to the issue of how undemocratic caucuses are and also how ridiculous a system is where a candidate can receive fewer votes but more delegates, as Obama did in Nevada and Texas.

His bigger point, which I'm not surprised to see Chait duck since it goes against his strident articles of late, is that the allocation of pledged delegates does not reflect the popular will.  Pledged delegates are assigned based on certain rules, fair or not, like them or not.  It is therefore improper to argue, as Chait does so often, that the superdelegates overturning a pledged delegate lead is somehow overturning the will of the people.

It tickles me how Wilentz would naively assume a central principle of American politics to be necessarily more democratic. The contrast is interesting.

Great post, Jonathan. Concisely devastating.

This primary seems to have fried Wilentz's brain.

Amazing how Wilentz didn't make these arguments last year working to change the rules to what he is saying now. If he had written one article making such an argument then his repeating that argument would have some validity, as it is he is just an intellectually bankrupt old fart who is staring at his own political oblivion.

bigm, I wish you would understand that just because superdelegates can choose Hillary doesn't mean that they will choose her. This is the pipe dream that Clintonistas hold on to so strongly I honestly believe that they now have managed to convince themselves that the mere existence of superdelegates equals support for Hillary, and if they do go with Obama (as is almost certain barring an Obama meltdown) then they will feel that Hillary was cheated of her rightful due. Hillary Clinton's campaign is like witnessing the death of the soul, utterly dispiriting no matter who you prefer.

I understand that the superdelegates may not select Clinton.  My point was that Chait's argument that such a selection overturns the popular will has flaw.

Or maybe it's just the death of the soul, like you say.

And people accuse Clinton and her supporters of being melodramatic . . .

"the issue of how undemocratic caucuses are"

I call BS. Caucuses are exactly as undemocratic as New England town meetings, PTA meetings, and all other exercises in scheduled direct democracy. As soon as someone comes to me with proof of his pre-2008 record of fighting to eradicate the tyranny of undemocratic direct democracy in Maine and New Hampshire, or a pre-2008 record of working to outlaw parent-teacher associations, then I will take seriously that person's argument that caucuses are "undemocratic." Until then, that argument is pure partisan-spin BS that almost rises to the level of the offensive.

I've come to the conclusion that the very existence of a presidency as opposed to a parliamentary system with a prime minister has put Clinton at a cruel disadvantage.  Think about it:  it's the American presidential race that produces agile, inspiring, and creative politicians like Obama.  That's just unfair.  If we had a parliamentary system Clinton would be party leader and would become prime minister if the Democratic Party wins, and Obama would have to watch his step or he wouldn't get a cabinet job.

It's obvious that the entire system is designed to ruin Clinton's chances.  

I apologize that I don't have a written record proving that I have long been a proponent of secret ballots and consider the absence of them in a caucus to be undemocratic.

I suppose you've convinced me though.  Look how well PTA meetings work.  I think we should abolish secret ballot voting for all elected positions and decide upon people through meetings!

Except for the party's convention, of course.  That shouldn't be an exercise in discussion about the relative value of the party's potential candidates.  The nomination should be decided before any meeting takes place there.

Cripes, Wilentz has officially jumped the shark with that argument.  Wasn't he (once) a respected historian?

What explains the willingness of Clintonites to continue making these humiliating arguments?  Isn't losing bad enough, without embarrassing oneself to boot?

Rhubarbs: thanks for that point.

That the slack-jawed members of our establishment media repeat that line uncritically is so depressing. Having attended a packed-to-the-rafters caucus meeting in Iowa -- a caucus that many UI college students drove hours, in bad weather, to participate in -- I chafe at the idea that a caucus is "undemocratic" or that it reflects the will of the "elite."

It reflects the will of people who give a shit, about the future of this country and the wayward Democratic Party. (If the electorate were limited to people fitting that description, HRC would have lost every state by her huge defeat margin in Iowa.)

bigm, um...where does Chait claim that superdelegates choosing Hillary overturns the popular will specifically. If it is popular vote total, then logic dictates that it would overturn the popular will or you truly don't understand the meaning of popular will. But you are shifting your arguments left and right. Chait talks about popular vote totals, you talk about pledged delegates as though the two are the same. Why are you putting words into his mouth?

Obama leads in pledged delegates and popular vote totals. Now I am curious how you can argue that choosing Hillary would not overturn the popular will. POPULAR WILL are your words. Really, I want to see how you can make 1+1=5.

Now if you want to say the rules allow it, that is fine, but please I want to see you redefine popular will as to mean something other than it actually is.

Death of the soul is artistic license, but please, tell me your attempts to redefine English to  benefit Hillary is not the slightest bit soul deadening.

"It reflects the will of people who give a shit, about the future of this country and the wayward Democratic Party."

Hear, hear!  Not everyone should have a say or have a vote.  Only those who give a shit.  Maybe we should reinstitute those literacy tests . . .

Wilentz doesn't have a fairness argument.  Winner-take-all in the general election isn't a "principle."  It's an artifact.  States have the power to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit and most chose long ago not to apportion them.  This choice makes sense in the two most common scenarios -- the state is a swing state or the state is solid and state government reflects that.  It makes sense to do winner take all if you're an official in a swing state, because you want to maximize your state's importance in the outcome of the election.  Winner-take-all aggrandizes your state's importance.  If your state is solid, chances are that your state government, even if it has members of the opposite party in leadership positions, will not be able to summon the political will to move to an apportionment system because it would take electoral votes away from the majority's consistent choice.  If democracy -- that is, popular majority will -- is your measure of fairness, and it should be unless the majority attempts to trample individual rights, then winner-take-all is plainly *less* fair than apportionment, or, better yet, national popular vote.  Winner-take-all distorts our elections by forcing candidates to focus disproportionately on an arbitrary selection of large swing states.  It makes margins meaningless, makes all votes against the state's winner meaningless, makes large solid states irrelevant in the selection process, and makes all small states irrelevant in the selection process.  This system -- winner-take-all -- was never *chosen* by anybody as the ideal way to pick a president, so it's little wonder that it's very far from constituting such an ideal.  

Besides, as Chait points out, strategy is geared toward the rules that exist and not some other rules, so arguments that everything would be the same except the outcome if the rules had been different from the start are always highly dubious, whether you're talking about sports or politics or anything involving rules and strategy.

Wilentz, at most, has an electability argument.  But it's not a very good one.  Hillary does better than Obama against McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania right now, but Obama can pick those states up, as recent polls have shown.  Meanwhile, he does better than Hillary against McCain in the northwest (where polls show him beating McCain and McCain beating Hillary), the west (where he does better than Hillary in Colorado and Nevada) and upper midwest (where Obama fares better than Hillary against McCain in a whole host of vulnerable states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa.)  As of today, the electoral math as I read it slightly favors Obama -- Obama winning in a squeaker and Clinton losing in a squeaker -- but that can change.  Things are close.  She needs a very strong case that he can't win and she can.  She just doesn't have it.

bigm, way to evade the questions I pose, by being snarky to others.

Political parties are not, in reality, democracies, they are parties. The Democratic party set it up that each state can choose the method they most prefer to garner delegates. The only effective right that you (and I) as a party member, can make changes is to agitate that the method that our own states chooses delegates changes. If you are really ambitious and lucky you can be part of the rules making committee of the party, but that is not likely for either of us. If you are truly unhappy with the Democratic party, start your own, but understand that literacy tests or any method you choose is perfectly acceptable. Literacy tests are illegal for general elections and have nothing to do with party selection. Ralph Nader was chosen by a group of people in a room to lead whatever party he is leading. Are you protesting that? So while what bela says might bother you, you should not conflate the general with the primary, that is just wrong (not evil wrong, just silly wrong)

Honestly, bigm, equating literacy tests with giving a shit about an election?  Please.  What utter foolishness.

The point of the caucus (I live in Texas, voted, and attended the caucus that was heavliy in favor of Clinton (I live in Deep South Texas, or as a Texas historian friend says, 'Occupied Mexico')) is that it actually demands the participation of people who are willing to spend a little time in the process.  How is this anti-democratic?  

Just how are you defining democracy, by the way?

Also, the time to pose alternative forms of staging elections is not during the actual election.  If a different system is desired, by all means, devise one, and then implement said system prior to the next election.

We could thoroughly enjoy ourselves in a game of posing counterfactuals, but it would be just that, a game.

Well, if you're going to bring up literacy tests, then in fact caucuses are _more_ democratic than secret-ballot primaries. Because ballots are written documents, and you cannot cast a vote for your preferred candidate if you cannot read the ballot.* But most caucuses allow people to express their preferences verbally or physically, with no need to read or write anything.

But, hey, why let annoying things like facts get in the way of any argument that might benefit Hillary?

*The usual solution for people who cannot read ballots is to have the ballot read to them by a poll worker, in which case the illiterate voter is singled out for public humiliation and his ballot choice is no longer secret, both of which (deterring effects on shy people and unsecret balloting) are said to be the main reasons why caucuses and other exercises in direct democracy are "undemocratic."

Blackton,

Chait says in his charmingly titled piece from a few issues ago ("Go Already!") the following:

"And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's."

Now, why would he say this?  Is it because it is against the rules for superdelegates to do so?  No, of course not.  His supposition is that "overturning" an elected delegate lead is somehow improper.  Why?  Because of Chait's assumption that the elected delegates reflect the popular will.

I agree with you about the popular vote, by the way.  My point, in defending Wilentz, is only that there are no angels here.  The Obama supporters argue in a way that benefits them, not with any highminded thoughts of democracy, etc., in their mind.  That's fair enough.  They should just spare the sanctimony.

bigm, anytime you start making suppositions about what people say, well you are already behind the eight ball as it were. I read the line "And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's." as just that, and acknowledgment of reality, not as a kind of value judgment.

As an Obama supporter, I can honestly say if Hillary did lead in the popular vote totals narrowly and Obama in pledged delegates or vice versa, I could live with whoever the superdelegates chose. (Live with mind you not vote for, whom I vote for is my business.) Essentially, if it were that close, then I recognize that superdelegates probably have a better sense of where the money is and money is damn near almost as important as voters.

And I also recognize that if Obama were to totally tank the last dozen contests, then he would have to be considered unelectable in November. But that doesn't seem like it is going to happen. Regardless, June 4 is only 2 months away, which is not truly all that long.

the Democratic Party crafted a patently stupid primary system which does bode well for its ability to govern an actual nation.

If we had a parliamentary system, I suppose proportional primary would make sense.  Then it could emulate the factional system of the national government.  Although, I'm not quite sure what the point would be as you would still be in a bind.

As it is, you're going to get a candidate who has mainly won delegates from sparsely populated rural states, or Southern states with large black voting blocs on the Democratic side.

None of which states will he take in the national election.

For a party run by academics and intellectuals, you guys sure are dumb.

So so wrong Channy.

Unlike our friends across the aisle, we Democrats actually disdain the idea of the person with the most money and name recognition being the defacto nominee. Pecking order means nothing to us. Our losers may be losers, but they typically at least they have brains in their skulls rather than big bank accounts and the right last names.  George W. Bush is the quintessential Reublican nominee.  Who has the dumb system?

In our system, the big shots have to earn it.  They have to work it and work it hard.

There is no easy way for a rich man to get in to heaven with us - just like Jesus said.  Because we're Democrats, anyone can be President if they ar smart enough and inspire enough people - whoever they are running against.  

Hillary has become Brittany - losing her mind on live TV with an army of morons cheering her on to support their own egos.  If these people really cared about Hillary, they'd encourage her to stop humilating herself.  Hillary might not shave her head, but something close is next.  Her "supporters" should be ashamed of themselves for allowing it.

Ahhh, looks as if I missed quite an exiting day on the TNR blogspehre being away from my computer all day.  I see the usual pro-Obama supporters are arguing their positions "objectively" rather than admitting their positions on democracy and caucuses just so happen to benefit Obama.  For what it's worth, I don't think caucuses are un-democratic. I think they simply allow more assertive people or those who have more time for the process to get whay they want, to influence others and, consequently, affect the outcome.  Texas is a perfect example.  Hill gets the popular vote via the primary and Obama takes the caucuses, which started late in the evening (think about where Moms and seniors would be at that time). Take a look at the demographic break of who supports which candidate and you can see why Obama comes out ahead in caucuses.  Should that be changed?  No.  Hillary and Co. should have paid attention.  Is the proportional allotment undemocratic?  No.  I think of it as being far more fair than the republicans winner-take-all approach, but republicans have a history of caring less about democracy anyway .  But Wilentz's discussion does raise an issue I think the Obama people are in slight denial about: he hasn't won the big states, the ones that will deliver the electoral votes needed to seure a democratic GE win.  It's time to deal with this shortcoming of Obama's.  Denying its existence is not gona help.   And, i would seriously doubt that he will truly re-write the electoral map as he is promising to do.

Good point Channy.  Couldn't agree more.

Chait seems obsessed with getting Hillary out before the votes are cast (including Florida and Michigan). Despite all his tendentious "demolishing" of reasons for her to stay in, has it not occurred to him that if the superdelegates wanted her out the race would be over immediately? So they must want it to go on.

For a change of intellectual and moral force, here is a link to Christopher Hitchens's account of how Obama compares to King:

www.slate.com/.../2188414

I don't have an opinion about whether Clinton should bow out now, gracefully or not. I tend toward Obama's stated view, to the effect "it's not my business to tell her what she should or should not do." Interestingly, Clinton supporters elect to whine about this statement, too, how "disingenuous" "calculating" "two faced" etc., it shows him to be if we take x y or z facts or allegations into consideration. This is the spirit of the Clintonites who argue this way: my/our candidate is a victim of circumstance, prejudice (against, women, underdogs, honest workers, fair players...), And it stinks, if for no other reason that it confirms what Republicans have said about Democrats forever, we're bleeding hearts and fuzzy minds.

By the time the voting is over in PA and NC, it will be clear that, under any realistic scenario for the remaining primaries, Hillary will end up with fewer pledged delegates and fewer popular votes.  National polls currently give Obama a slight edge over McCain and McCain a slightly larger edge over Hillary.  National polls also show that Democrats prefer Obama to Hillary. When the state-by-state polls are matched against the Electoral College votes, the US News analysis gives Obama a clear advantage over Hillary.  He has a much better balance of favorable and unfavorable ratings by voters than she (her high negatives alone would be enough to sink almost any candidate).  He has demonstrated better organizational ability and has been able to raise much more money from a much broader donor base.

As has repeatedly been pointed out, the "big state" argument is a fallacy.  The Dems will win CA and NY, the 1st and 3rd largest states and lose TX and FL, the 2nd and 4th largest, whether the candidate is Obama or Hillary.  Advantage Dems.  From there on out, the math favors Obama.  It doesn't matter whether you collect your majority of the remaining Electoral College votes needed from big states or small.  What matters is that you can get them.  Obama can. Hillary most likely cannot.

This means that by every single metric that makes any sense, Obama is a stronger candidate than Hillary.  Now what exactly is the argument on her behalf?  And just where do Hillaristas get off claiming that it is "sanctimonious" to point out these facts?

tammya@udel.edu writes:

"But Wilentz's discussion does raise an issue I think the Obama people are in slight denial about: he hasn't won the big states, the ones that will deliver the electoral votes needed to seure a democratic GE win.  It's time to deal with this shortcoming of Obama's.  Denying its existence is not gona help.   And, i would seriously doubt that he will truly re-write the electoral map as he is promising to do."

Agreed, and I'm surprised that the Clinton camp hasn't made this their #1 sell to the delegates, pledged and super, and stuck to it. If a majority of delegates were to decide on this basis I wouldn't holler "unfair, unfair" or if I did I would expect to be shouted down and if I were shouted down, I would come to my senses and give it up. This is exactly what Clinton's campaign doesn't do, why I don't know. I think it's foolish to carom from one specious argument to the next and back again. It gives the (perhaps wrong) impression that they haven't the confidence of their case's prevailing. Bad attitude in an adversarial contest, primary grade politics 01.

Sorry, pc, more wishful thinking by you.  The superdelegates don't want Hillary in the race.  They want her out.  But they do not want to be seen to call the race while there is still some chance, at least in the minds of many voters, that Hillary could win.  That would be perceived as overruling the will of the voters and could engender a backlash threatening the outcome in November.  In fact, she can't win.  But if the supers put it out of reach to soon, it could be made to appear that they overruled the party rank and file.  As soon as PA and NC are over and it is evident that there are no more possible scenarios for Hillary to win either a majority of pledged delegates, a majority of popular votes, or claim some "momentum," I predict the supers will declare and the race will be over.  

None-the-less, all of the movement amongst the supers has been towards Obama -- which should give you a very clear idea of which way they intend to go.  Moreover, their willingness to abstain rather than be perceived as overruling the voters is all the indication you need that there is not the slightest chance that they will overturn the outcome of the primaries and caucuses and popular vote by choosing Hillary.  That will never happen and they are basically saying so by withholding their declarations.  By your own logic, if they want Hillary in the race, why withhold their declarations?  You are in effect admitting that if they declared today, Obama would be the nominee.  If they wanted Hillary, they would declare for Hillary now and give the voters in the remaining states the greatest possible incentive to put her over the top.  Not happening because she is not their pick.

This is the reason why Hillary's latest line is that "everyone should be given a chance to vote." It's purpose is to make it seem undemocratic for the supers to determine the outcome, although that is exactly what Hillary is asking them to do, contrary to the will of the voters, in order to give her the nomination.  In other words, for Hillary, democracy should prevail only to the extent that it favors her.  Otherwise, democracy should not prevail.  Simple, easy to understand, and yet another reason why she should not be the party's nominee, as if any more were needed.

tomeg,

The reason Hillary doesn't just stick with the "big state" argument is that all of the professional pols, including the super-delegates, know that it is bullshit.  It might make good spin for the public, but the supers know that it has no bearing on the outcome of the general once you take away the states that are inevitably red or blue regardless of the candidate.

"But Wilentz's discussion does raise an issue I think the Obama people are in slight denial about: he hasn't won the big states, the ones that will deliver the electoral votes needed to seure a democratic GE win.  It's time to deal with this shortcoming of Obama's.  Denying its existence is not gona help.   And, i would seriously doubt that he will truly re-write the electoral map as he is promising to do."

There are a few major flaws with this line of reasoning.  The first is that losing a state in the primary does not translate into losing it in the general election.  The Clintons of all people should know this since in the 1992 primary Bill lost Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, and literally all of New England and then went on to win those states in the general election.  If you want to make electability arguments, primary results are not the data to point to.

Second, even if you do insist on extrapolating from primary results to general election results, when did places like Wisconsin, Virginia, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, and Missouri stop being electorally relevant?

If you're interested in analysis of general election matchups, look at www.fivethirtyeight.com

Somebody link me to something Wilenz has written that isn't jaw-droppingly stupid.

He makes Jamie K look like Bertrand Russell. Why is he still here? Why? And micelf I think this is [at least] the third asanine article, not the second. I'm starting with the one about why Hillary was right to give credit to LBJ at MLK's expense for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Becuase only presidents can sign bills. Talkers don't have pens, you know. Ok, I'll shut up on that one now.

Why can't you stick to the topic at hand, pccostello? That (rather silly) Hitchens article has nothing to do with this discussion about the Wilentz article and caucuses and primaries and such. I know you don't want to talk about that - it's a losing issue for your side - but this isn't the first time you've tossed a completely non-related topic hoping to change the subject. You should be ashamed of these ridiculous attempts at discussion nullification.

roidubouloi and alan, thanks for going over the "big state" nonsense yet again. It's an obvious point, but it has to be highlighted every so often because a key aspect of the Clinton "kitchen sink" strategy is to bounce back and forth on so many bogus points that heads start to spin (as tomeg says up there). This one comes up from time to time, and it's just as stupid now as it was a month ago.

And tammy, I don't like caucuses because they favor Obama, I like caucuses because those are the rules of the Democratic Party. If the party decided to do away with caucuses and go solid primary, that's fine too. Let's change the rules for 2012; let's not change them now, in the middle of primary season. And let's not whine about the rules, either, whether it's how grossly unfair the caucuses are, or the ridiculous position the Michigan and Florida state parties put themselves and their voters in by ignoring the party rules. I just watched the NCAA basketball championship game and I didn't hear the coach of the losing team say "Well, we would have won if our three-point shots counted for four points."

I live in a caucus state, one that will be blue in November at that, and I am sick and tired of Clintonites telling me my vote means less than others because I caucused. You want to let the folks in Florida and Michigan vote TWICE, and at the same time sneer at my vote because it was in a caucus? Screw that. (Oh, and guess what? There were plenty of parents and seniors at my caucus. Many parents brought their kids with them.)

Psantillana,

Supposedly he is a respected historian with lots of good reviews from people who've read his books.  These same people are almost universally appalled at what he has turned himself into for the purposes of this campaign.  A shameless and pathologically dishonest propagandist with an agenda that only coincidentally (the few times that it does) discovers any relationship with the truth.  I've encountered used car salesmen with more plausibility than this guy.

Winner take all primaries are more "American"?  So is Manifest Destiny and the raping,  pillaging, and ethnic cleansing of the native americans, the kidnapping, enslaving and oppressing of african -americans, and the persecution, in some regions of the country, of Catholics and Jews.  "American" is praiseworthy only insofar as it coicides with "democratic".  Is he seriously trying to argue that giving the nomination to the candidate who has fewer popular votes but has managed enough one vote victories to make an electoral majority in winner take all contests....is a good thing?  If Obama ends up with more delegates but fewer popular votes (not counting Michigan and Florida), I think his moral claim on the nominaton will be undermined.  And Hillary is preparing to argue that very point with the Superdelegates if it becomes available and necessary.  How can her apologists and propagandists argue a completely opposite point with a straight face?  Do they just throw shit at a wall to see what sticks, or what?

Also, I was just struck by the absurdity of Wilentz's assertion that winner-take-all systems are "one of the central principles of American electoral politics," given that this wasn't even true in the historical period in which he specializes (19th century).  In 1824, for example, 12 of the 24 states used a winner-take-all voting system, 6 appointed their electors via the state legislature, 5 chose electors by district, and Maine used the system they have today (one for each congressional district and two for the overall state winner).  I suppose Wilentz the historian takes a back seat to Wilentz the shameless Clinton promoter.

Psantilla- to clarify, the recent article by Wilentz is in Salon, not TNR. I don't know if that means TNR does have standards for him, or he's spreading the bs around evenly. AFAIK, there have only been two articles by him on TNR. This third isn't on TNR. I'm suggesting that it's further evidence that TNR shouldn't give him MORE of a platform here.

Where are the reasonable HIllary partisans? Why not get the hobbit to write something? It can't possibly be more stupid than what Wilentz is likely to come up with.

I posted my suspicions re pccostello at the end of the Buckracking Bill thread and got no response from anyone.  He/she is, in my opinion, rather likely to be a paid Clinton campaign hack, tasked to monitor certain public affairs blogs and promote Clinton's cause whenever and wherever possible.

In that thread I clicked on pccostello's handle and observed the curious fact that his/hers account was listed as having been opened only on March 27, 2008, when we all know that someone has been posting as "pccostello" for months.  In this thread I tried to repeat the experiment and find that pc has blocked his/her profile by adding an unresolvable URL.

So what's the story, pccostello?  If you tell me you're NOT a Clinton campaign employee, I'd be inclined to believe you, since it'd be a pretty low-percentage lie for someone actually affiliated with the campaign.

aeronomas,

I am going to try not to be offensive, but you have to try to not be an intrusive idiot. I have NOTHING to do with any campaign. Who made you the thought police around here, anyway?

all,

The fundamental point that Wilentz is raising--beyond the carping details--is the sense of many Clinton supporters that this campign has strong elements of illegetimacy and unfairness. The sense of unfairness comes from the pillorying of Clinton in the press and the pillowing of Obama. The sense of illegimacy comes from the role of the caucuses in Obama's totals and his failutre to win in large states or among Democrats. (How does one calculate the popular vote in a caucus? What does this mean in the cases of Washington and Texas where the voting went one way and the caucuses another? Or Nevada, where the caucuses went one way and the delegates another?)

While one may dispute their feelings and beliefs, the sense of unfairness among Clinton supporters is very strong and quite widespread. It is not likely to be simply made up between now and November because it is based on a deeply felt grievance rather than a mere difference in candidate preferences. It is likely to have an effect on whom people vote for or whether they vote at all.

pccostello wrote "While one may dispute their feelings and beliefs, the sense of unfairness among Clinton supporters is very strong and quite widespread. It is not likely to be simply made up between now and November because it is based on a deeply felt grievance rather than a mere difference in candidate preferences. It is likely to have an effect on whom people vote for or whether they vote at all."

I largely agree with this and think both parties ought to start a dialogue about how to court the other side's supporters.  I've written about this before at TNR.  It seems the people here strongly believe Obama will get the nomination.  Rasmussen markets gives him the odds as do other sources.  So, Obama people, why don't you start trying to reach across the aisle like your candidate urges he will do as president?  Reach across the aisle to attract the Clinton supporters that pccostello writes about.  As one of them, I would hope and demand (with my one voice) that Clinton would do the same if she got the nod.  The "Obama big states denial" I wrote about yesterday has to do with the assumptions that he will simply win those states if he's the nominee or that they won't matter.  Why risk this?  Why make the GE race harder for him?  Get on board and do the work necessary to attract the other half of the democratic primary season voting bloc that backs Hillary.  This way, a long primary season may not actually hurt us.  

pccostello, for the second you have imputed to me a desire to censor you or somehow control/eliminate your postings.  I suggest you reread my posts regarding you and your obsessive and, at times, frankly irrational support of Hillary Clinton and her quixotic campaign for the presidency.  On no occasion did I tell you to shut up, go away, pipe down or say anything else to suggest that I desired for you cease exercising your First Amendment right to say whatever unsupportable nonsense strikes your fancy.

If anything, pccostello, in voicing my suspicion that you were a paid employee of the Clinton campaign, I was according you a measure of respect as it is difficult to fathom how a sane person could write some of the things you've written over the past few months--particularly your posts regarding HRC's chances of winning the nomination--if there were not some ulterior motive, such a paycheck, behind them.  But as I said in my prior post here in this thread, if you denied involvement with the campaign, I'd believe you.  And I do.

Now to respond to your most recent blather regarding "the sense of unfairness among Clinton supporters."  All I can tell you is that the sense of unfairness you have named will be like a gentle, springtime zephyr compared to the hurricane that will be the sense of unfairness felt by Obama supporters--especially those who claim roots in Africa--should the superdelegates throw the nomination to Clinton over the popular and the delegate majority vote.  

Please take a moment and listen to what you're saying.  You've called the primary election illegitimate.  Those are strong words, words with profound implications, and you and other Clinton supporters are throwing them around altogether too lightly.  I ask you, if the primary and caucus results were entirely reversed, if Clinton was in the lead having done disproportionately well in caucus or really if she was simply in the lead, would you be questioning the legitimacy of caucuses?  Of course not.  But if that's the case, then by rights you cannot question their legitimacy as things stand.

Its FLAWED reasoning imo to think that if the democratic primary was winner take all Hilary would be winning. This assumes that obama didnt have a strategy coming into the primary of how he is going to win that he just luckily won the way he did. Well guess what except for a couple mistakes like winning Maine which he thought Hilary would have won his campaign UNCANNILY predicted what states they would win. Now if he had such a plan in place way before it actually happened is it that far fetched to think that if it was winnner take all that he woudlnt have had a plan that took this into account. Maybe he would have done things differently in NY CA and Texas and the other big machine states. Maybe he would have started earlier. We dont know because it wasnt a winner take all strategy. So to imube a winner take all strategy and say Obama would be losing is unsound reasoning. In fact I would argue that Hilary would STILL be losing simply because she was NOT prepared. She wasnt prepared for Texas Prima/Caucas strategy she wasnt prepared for what came after Super Tuesday.

Carol

the sense of unfairness among Clinton supporters is very strong and quite widespread.

Good, so I take it that you are going to vote for McCain in November if Obama is the nominee. If McCain wins due to feminist support in a fit of bitchy pique I will laugh my ass of when McCain appoints another Scalia to the bench and Roe Vs. Wade is overturned. Your threats are so empty it is laughable. I can live with a McCain Presidency (since I don't even live in the US it is quite easy), can you?

pccostello wrote, "before the votes are cast (including Florida and Michigan)"

Florida and Michigan have already voted. Democrats in those states _chose_ to cast their votes in contests that would elect no delegates in the hope that by doing so, they would gain early influence over perceptions of the race. That gamble did not pay off, and so Florida and Michigan failed in their attempts to disenfranchise the rest of the country. To say that Florida and Michigan have not cast votes is to state a known falsehood. It is, in other words, to lie.

PC. I guess I can understand the sense of unfairness, but it seems post-hoc to me. Where were the Clinton supporters who were concerned about the issue of caucuses before the fact? if the situation were reversed (i.e., if Hillary had done much better at caucuses than Obama had), would you or most HIllary supporters be concerned about the validity of caucuses? I think that's the real issue many have with the Clinton campaign approaches. There's an after-the-fact complaint that the rules were unfair, with no such complaint before hand. And if one wants to argue that caucuses are undemocratic, surely the Clinton approach that pledged delegates can and should be flipped is even more democratic. No?

Tammy- that's a good point, and I'd be interested in hearing suggestions you have for what Obama should do to court erstwhile Clinton supporters. Indeed, I'd like to see some TNR energy devoted to some thinking on the topic. I think the ongoing primary makes that more difficult, as as long as Obama has to defend himself against Clinton's criticisms, he's going to have more trouble with her supporters. I agree he would do well to court them, but honestly am stumped as to what he needs to do in that regard, particularly in the current environment. Thoughts?

Hi miceelf and others.  What might a Obama/Clinton conciliation look like?  How could it get started?  I agree that having this discussion is difficult to do so before the nominee is determined. I am worried about us, the people who vote and have taken sides.  As psychobabble as it sounds, we must come to terms with our positions, beliefs, and yes, feelings, about this.  So my recommendations would be (1) acceptance: supporters on each side accept the other sides' complaints and positions or at the very least, don't trivialize them.  Aeromonas disses the other side when he/she writes that "All I can tell you is that the sense of unfairness you have named will be like a gentle, springtime zephyr compared to the hurricane that will be the sense of unfairness felt by Obama supporters--especially those who claim roots in Africa--should the superdelegates throw the nomination to Clinton over the popular and the delegate majority vote." I know peeps like aeromonas will be upset if Clinton gets the nod just as I will be if Obama gets the nod.  But we will need to quickly get over it and that won't happen automatically.  I want aeromonas to find common ground with me, not tell me his/her injustice is greater than mine.  Second, stop the candidate bashing, especially the really personal derogatory adjectives and phrases.  People are tired of hearing that Hillary is a monster, evil and a liar.  Those comments cement opposition to Obama and work the same way for Clinton, i.e., comments of the same type piss off Obama people (e.g., the arrogant, empty-suit comments).  Third, focus on the big picture.  At this point in the contest, it seems to me that we, i.e. democrats, need to stay focused on larger forest (the major shift that our country would get from a dem president) instead of getting bogged down with two trees (hill and barack).  Let us keep in mind, that both want us out of iraq, both want more affordable healthcare, both are determind to improve the economy.  We all will get this if either one is elected.  

I'd love to hear other ideas and would love, even more, to start seeing a more respectful dialogue about coming together show up among the very smart people on this blog and others.

Tammy--

A genuinely admirable post. I am not sure I am ready for it.

Tammy- thanks for thinking about it. The fact that contest going on currently makes it harder, so I appreciate the effort on your part. :-)

I will note that what you are suggesting appears to mainly apply to Obama (and Hillary) supporters, NOT to the candidates themselves. As much as I feel that some of Sen. Clinton's attacks on Obama have been unfair/groundless/silly, there's generally been little true bashing by either candidate (as you note, much of it is done at the grassroots supporter level). As well, at least in their better moments, both candidates tend to focus on the bigger picture stuff.

I think we agree that right now, Obama looks like he has a better chance at the nomination than does Clinton. So, the question is how does he reach out to Clinton supporters while at the same time girding for the general. Certainly, the big picture stuff is one thing. I suspect some explicit appeal to feminism might be another? And I think the issue at this stage is largely one of tone- how to be (perceived to be) simultaneously gracious to Clinton, while batting down some of the more damaging of her attacks.

Tammy, I also want us all to get along, or at least be nice. I try to be nice to her supporters because I don't think it's a crime to be wrong, and I try to have productive discussions with them whenever possible. But I don't think "liar" is an unfair attack on Hillary. I think it's true, and it's one of the things that bothers me about her. And that's ok, right?

I hear you pccostello, miccelf and am assured that peeps like you and I will be quickly ready to move forward and do exactly the kind of outreach that will be necessary.  Miccelf, I was thinking at the gym that we should ask the other side what it is that they would need/want.  That would be a good start.  Also, I agree that a feminist-type outreach would help Obama, but it wouldn't be sufficient, of course, and it would have to be a hybrid of old and new schools to appeal to both my Mom and my female undergraduates.  I need to jett off to a meeting, but hope to dialogue more later.  And yes, miccelf, I'm talking about we the grassroots supporters, not the candidate themselves.  Thanks all for engaging.

Tammy- thanks again for the dialogue. I suspect that Obama needs to do much more work with your mom than with your undergrads, if the national polls are to be believed. I have heard people suggest that winner pretty much has to have the loser as the VP. Not sure that is the case. I think being overly gracious when accepting the concession would be a big start, and neither side has been particularly good at that. I think in Obama's case, he needs to reach out to the working class more and to older folks. Both natural democratic constituents, and probably the groups least likely to be initially attracted to his more general tone/approach. But as to specifics, not sure. I have white trash roots, so I have vague recollections, but am definitely upper middle class at this point in my life.