You think one endorsement would turn around that many voters?

His lead is pretty beefy there, but I guess anything is possible.  

This is also the old Rendell strategy, only the odds of it actually panning out for Obama seem much better: I hear from family there (I know, I know - heresy is dangerous and I stay humble in  the face of it) who claim every breathing human in the Research Triangle is an Obama voter.  Lots of them there, most of the state thank God.

It seems like the rest of NC will vote for Hillary when pigs fly anyway, or any Democrat.  

You beat me to it wandreycer.

Obama has a steady 15% RCP poll average lead and we are supposed to believe that a couple of hundred thousand North Carolinians are going to change their minds because of what Elizabeth Edwards thinks?  

Clearly now that the primary race is effectively over, the pundits have run out of things to talk about.  I am getting the sense that the MSM is coming down from the PA high and beginning to recognize that that was Hillary's last stand and she didn't make it.

John Edwards is very popular in North Carolina! They love him there! Why, before, he dropped out, he was all the way in 2nd place in the Democratic primary poll!

Roid.  I think you're reading the media incorrectly.  Take a look at the posts today on realclearpolitics.com.  There are several articles critical and pessimistic of Obama.  Several say he has lost his media darling status. Also, don't be so quick to conclude that the 15 point lead he now holds in NC will remain.  He is a bit more vulnerable now.  Hillary has raised tons of cash since the PA win.  Plus, Obama won't debate in NC.  That's bad PR.  My prediction is that Hillary will close the gap in NC to one in the single digits.    

If Hillary can't close the deal in North Carolina, then how can she close the deal in November? It is an absolute must win state for her, and she needs to win in by at least double digits. If she does win it by double digits, then it should be obvious the floor has dropped out for Obama and Hillary does have a claim.

If she can't win in North Carolina, then that final tide shall have turned, and shall tear down her castle built of sand and false hope.

I, for one, look forward to hearing how Obama's win in North Carolina doesn't matter, or how West Virginia goes so goes the nation. It should be quite amusing.

I don't know tammy.  I just took another look and my opinion is unchanged.  Here's a nice summation of the state of play:

www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html

I think NC is going to be a blowout because Obama's supporters are going to want to answer PA decisively on his behalf.  Obama never had media darling status so he hasn't lost it. That was just the spin of the people who oppose him.  It is still Clinton who is the media darling or the press would have declared she was finished quite some time ago.  The money Hillary has raised make her feel better, but it is hardly a game changer.  Do you think Obama has not been continuing to raise money?

Sorry tammy.  This is just more of the narrative that Hillary still has a chance.  I don't know what the point of it is, but it seems to make Hillaristas feel better.  The rest of the world is moving on because, once it is clear that there is no contest, it quickly becomes boring.

Forget NC.  Two-three weeks ago, the RCP poll average had Obama down 7% in IN.  Now it has him up 3%.  If May 6 is an Obama sweep, including one of the rust-belt states that Hillary considers her exclusive domain, the narrative justification for her candidacy is going to collapse.  I think it inevitable that a large mass of supers will fall off the fence at that point -- nudged by the party leadership -- and we should be able to call it a day.  I'm saying the race is declared over by the MSM by Friday the 9th.

Anyone wanna make book on that?

Tammy,

Could you perhaps provide an example of a state in which Obama started with a big lead and Hillary substantially cut into it?  I can't think of any, but perhaps I'm missing one.  The closest I can come up with would be New Hampshire, but Obama's brief lead in the polls there was related to a bounce from Iowa rather than any structural advantages; indeed, as in most of the other early voting states, it was Clinton who started with the large lead.  In any case, the general pattern throughout the nomination process has been one of Obama's support increasing as he campaigns in a state.  I wouldn't bank on that suddenly changing.  If anything, I expect Obama's lead to increase.

As for the PR of not debating her in NC, I think it's a non-issue.  Clinton's "he won't debate me" line in Wisconsin was a dud, and it's a pretty silly argument given that they have now debated over 20 times.

Well Roi - let's not temp the Gods.  I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that the gajillions of brainiacs in the Research Triangle can finish this for us.  Indiana?  

After the Brady effect I've seen a couple of times now, I'd say no polls - least of all the ones that are this close - are reliable.  Anything is possible.  

Not sure what the old people/bitter blue collar whites ratio is there - Hillary's peeps.

I think Tammy is on to something - I hope Obama is up in those hills knocking doors on all those moonshiners houses.  You know Hillary is.

Tammy, or anyone for that matter, I challenge you to name one primary in which Clinton has improved her standing upon campaigning there.

In every "Clinton state" contest, she has hemorrhaged support leading up to the primary (see: TX, OH, PA).  In every "Obama contest," Clinton did not significantly cut into his lead upon campaigning there.

Virginia is a good example of this underreported phenomenon.  There, Obama's polling lead actually widened from 15 pts to 22 pts in the week between Super Tuesday and the Potomac primaries.

The trend is clear: in every case, Obama's support has increased upon campaigning there, and Clinton's has decreased.  I'd say he's a pretty good campaigner indeed.

All.  I think we need to adjust our current positions based on the histroy of the moment rather than past performances.  Today we have the following: (1) Obama has not won PA and there is a serious perception out there that he can't win big Demcratic battlegrounds and evidence that he can't win the white working class.  The PA vote demonstrated this.  (2) Florida and Michigan just became gobbs more important given the PA Clinton victory margin.  This makes Obama's actions to deny those states even more problematic right now and as we go forward.  (3) Clinton has momentum, for whatever that's worth.  The MSM seem to think its worth something, (4) the super delegate votes or big endorsements outside the particular state that's voting don't seem to matter (here is where the NC support Obama got recently might help him).

I could go on, but I won't.  And I won't answer AlanSP's question directly because I think it's time for Obama supporters to start looking at his real problems, rather than the micro-politics of whether he will prevail to get the nod.  Again, I think he will even though I wish Hillary would.  I'm busy thinking about what Obama looks like as a general election candidate.   It's looking worse and worse.  Doesn't that concern you Alan, Roid, Blackton?  Remember, each of us wants a Dem in the White House.

p.s. Roid, a piece of advice, I'd drop your dismissive tone toward Hillary's supporters once your guy gets the nod.  Remember the exit polls: 25% of her supporters will vote for McCain if Obambi gets the nod (I'm not one of the 25, but who cares).  Dismissing them won't attract them.  

Obambi?? Really? I mean, really?

What is this, a Politico comment thread? I'd watch that dismissive tone, Tammy!

Blackton's got it all wrong - Hillary's not required to win NC, it's an Obama state. If she doesn't win, it won't be because she didn't close the deal, but because North Carolinians voted for the wrong person (probably from drinking Kool-Aid purchased at the local Whole Foods). Only one person can close the deal - Obama. Because NC is his state, he needs at least a triple digit win to deal a knock-out blow. 1000% would be ideal, of course, but as long as he doesn't dip too far below, say 850% of the voters, he can claim victory. (Though if he acheives this total by getting a bunch of volunteers to man phone banks and canvass door-to-door to whip up votes, it will be illegitimate. Grass roots organizing is the bane of democracy, turning what should be a contest based on name recognition and sound bites into some ridiculous game of "the more motivated you are, the more you know about me and my positions, the more likely you are to vote for me," which, it hardly needs to be said, favors Obama, and therefore sucks.)

oops -

There simply is nothing problematic about the MI, FL situation - except for the Senators who should lose their jobs for their arrogance.  I feel for them, but this is entirely their problem alone.

They broke the rules and now Hillary partisans want to continue to do so.  What contitutes and problem/opportunity for cheaters does not translate in to a problem with the rest of the country.  Sorry.  They keep trying to frame it as some open issue, which it is not.  It closed long ago.  

John and Elizabeth would look awfully cynical if they endorsed Hillary after bashing her as an instrument of the evil establishment all summer in 2007.

The Obama campaign needs to make a straightforward argument: we understand that you prefer Hillary's healthcare mandate, and we acknowledge the reasons for your position. But let's remember 1992-3. She can't deliver *anything*, let alone mandated universal coverage.

I hear you Tammy - you're the sole voice of sanity from Hillary supporters on these boards (most of the time Lymon too) and I honestly value your willingness to try and to say you'll vote for Obama if it comes to that.  It is very mature and wise of you.  

Thank you.

But bringing up the MI, FL thing as valid issues will surely get you shot down faster than anything else.  That's just straight up kool-aid around here - cheater gibberish - and won't even begin to fly.

amen ralphnelle.

"This makes Obama's actions to deny those states" um... how about evidence? The only people in the world that can schedule elections in Florida and Michigan are the representatives in Florida and Michigan. If both states are supposedly Clinton country, then why don't the representatives schedule an election? Why? Because they don't want to pay for it, the states want the party to pay for it, and the party wants the state to pay for it. Impasse. And Dean is the Chairman of the party, not Obama nor Hillary.

I agree a revote would be great, perhaps a caucus (which is cheapest and most easily managed)? Oh, wait, a caucus is not fair since Hillary can't win them, right? Even though the issue is money and even though there is nothing to prevent a caucus from being done on a Saturday.

And don't worry about November. $4 dollar a gallon gas and a promise of "more of the same, more tax breaks for oil companies, more tax breaks for the rich, it will work this time I promise." Good luck with that.

Actually, McCain has been running like a Democrat lately and Hillary like a Republican. Only McCain has denounced those ads in North Carolina. This, McCain hiding his Republican roots, is what scares me. (although not that much, I genuinely admire McCain)

Obambi was a joke, a very playful response to Hillarista, which people here seem to feel justified to use.  So toss it off as my tit for tat.  

Wanderer.  What do you think the people in MI and FL want?  Stop focusing on the party leaders who clearly fucked things up and start thinking about the voters.  Looks as if every state in the country will have a say in the dem primary process, but those two.  Don't you think that's a problem?  Its a lose/lose either way.  Sure, denying their votes makes Obama's case airtight, but how does it affect him in the Fall?  I won't tell you what my brother's contingent in Florida thinks of Obama and my brother perfectly fits the Obama middleclass educated white voting block.

p.s. thanks for noticing I'm reasonable.  

wandrey, dkolic is very reasonable too, as was Basman a while back before I guess he simply gave up on her since I have not seen him here for a bit.

I can't wait till this is over, I got in a huge argument with my elderly mother who persisted in saying that Ayers and Obama are best friends. (she is from Pa. and voted for Hillary)

And people say how terrible it is that Obama's white supporters are more educated. Hillary for President of the Idiocracy, leave Obama for the rest of us. We have seen what 8 years of the bumpkin vote has brought us, lets glorify the bumpkins again, Smart is bad, dumb is good. Intelligence is elitism, illiteracy a sign of authenticity. Honestly, this is like the Chinese cultural revolution and Hillary is our Mao. Have you ever wondered why she wears so many red pantsuits?

tammya, Hillarista is akin to Obamacon, it refers to the supporters, Obambi is a direct insult to Obama making fun of his family name. I have never made fun of the Clinton name, nor would I even want to. My last name is blackton and I have been called (when I was young) n***gerton more times than I remember.

And I am white. So lets get beyond that, shall we?

And don't tell me Hillbillary is offensive. I actually find it a kind of cute conjoining of their names (not that cute) the same as Bennifer or other trite things.

Blackton.  I;'ve been working on my working-class white mother too and all of her friends re:obama.  My madre can't bring herself to vote for him because of his name.  We go over it a million times and I get nowhere. I won't tell you about the conversation I had about Obama with my father about the guys at the factory where he works in southern PA.  Terrible.

According to your profile, I (Ph.D.) should be an Obama supporter.  I've been told by my colleagues, that "I'm smarter than that, i.e., to support Hillary." One even said to me, "you're intelligent, Tammy, and we know who to vote for."  What is the implication of that comment?  How do you think that played with me?  I was insulted.

And I find Obambi cute.  I didn't come up with it, Blackton.  Nevertheless, your thinking that Hillbillary is cute is the same as my thinking Obambi is cute and playful.  Maybe your defensiveness is showing a little.  Let's just drop all the names.  You got my word on it.

tammya, actually my father is also a Clinton supporter, he takes a "realist" view that a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama can never be elected in America, and that whatever her campaigning faults Hillary is a very intelligent woman.

I don't disagree with either assertion (although hope number one is wrong), but neither do I have to support Hillary. She is a great Senator. I just don't think she is equipped to be President (99.9999999%) of all Americans aren't either. Just because her husband was doesn't mean she is. That proximity to power has made her become convinced she could exercise it as well, but she simply lacks the political skills. Her campaign has been a disaster, and it has required Obama's faults to give her her only hope at all.

That said, I never said all Clinton supporters are idiots. But to make the observation that Hillary gets the base of her support from the uneducated, and then to point out just what uneducated means, well that is elitist.

I taught in University in China for years, and now in Mexico. The differences are staggering. Let me simply point out that education is a good thing, the more educated the populace the better off the society will be. Americans have got to stop this fetish for glorification of ignorance. Hillary's justification to get the nod "I get a majority of the stupid vote." does do disservice to America.

Well, blackton, you want evidence?  One of the things I was discussing with a friend just this morning is that, increasingly, in the MSM and just about anywhere else, people fell totally free to recite their opinions or hopes as if they are facts and have no interest in actually arguing from evidence.  When did this happen?

Tammy, I am sorry to say, your post falls in this category.

The "serious perception" that Obama cannot win big Democratic battlegrounds is based on the thoroughly debunked notion that the results in a primary presage the results in a general election with a different set of candidates and different electorate.  They don't, both obvious logical reasons and as repeatedly demonstrated by people who have bothered to look up the history of primary v general election wins.  Obama will win CA and NY and the other solid blue states.  He puts more of the other states in play than Hillary.  The so-called "serious perception" consists of nothing more than Hillarista spin.  You hope to persuade enough people that, contrary to all evidence, this is so in order to create a willingness on the part of super delegates to substitute their judgment for that of the voters.  But the argument is too patently ridiculous to persuade any professional politician, and that's what the supers are, professional politicians.

Similary, FL and MI did not just become "gobbs more important given the PA Clinton victory margin" for two reasons.  First, FL and MI are not important.  It is now abundantly clear that those illegitimate delegations will not be seated and the legislatures of the respective states have not taken up the offer to hold legitimate primaries or caucuses.  It may be gobbs more important to you, but nothing about FL or MI is going to affect the outcome of the nominating process.  Second, there is nothing important about the "PA Clinton victory margin" except that it was trivial.  She won 10-11 net delegates with that victory margin.  The only significance of it is that it was far, far too small to change the dynamics of the race.  It as her last clear chance, and she did nothing.  Indeed, from 19+% in the polls a couple of weeks before the election, she was pushed down to about 9+%, a very middle of the road result in a state with near perfect demographics for her.  Both she and Obama have done far better than that anty number of times.

Third, you SAY that Hillary has "momentum."  Leaving aside whether this is even a meaningful notion or basis for any prediction or merely another way of saying she won the very latest contest, on what do you base this claim?  In PA, her numbers declined markedly in a state that was very much hers.  In IN, where she had the lead in the polls, Obama has taken the lead in the very same time frame.  In NC, there is no sign of movement in her direction.  If anyone has momentum at the moment, meaning motion in their direction rather than a static result in their favor, the evidence, such as exists, would say the momentum is with Obama.  This is supported by the PA polls which now show Obama winning head to head with McCain and by the national polls, all of which are either a tie or now in Obama's favor against McCain while Hillary continues to lag.  What on earth are you talking about?

Finally, even if Hillary did "have momentum," she is out of time.  There are no longer enough races or delegates left to allow her to convert momentum into victory.  PA was her last clear chance and she fell very, very far short of what she needed to accomplish there.

Do you play tennis?  This race has been like a tennis match.  Obama repeatedly broke Hillary's serve while holding his own serve.  She never broke his.  That is why after each round of voting he has always been further ahead than before, notwithstanding the endless nauseating spin that this race counts and that one doesn't and she won this, that or the other constituency and he couldn't.  It was always ridiculous nonsense.  While she has been spinning, he has been winning.  While spinning might maintain the perception that there is a contest, you have to win it to win it.  She has lost.  Having broken Hilllary's serve several times, Obama merely has to play to the end of the match without breaking his ankle.

May 7, the day after NC, the whole world will have to admit the truth (except Hillary, of course, who will say that she is going to continue to fight even when she has to make up a 170 delegate deficit with only 217 left to be selected).  

Obama has not won PA and there is a serious perception out there that he can't win big Demcratic battlegrounds and evidence that he can't win the white working class.  The PA vote demonstrated this.  (2) Florida and Michigan just became gobbs more important given the PA Clinton victory margin.  This makes Obama's actions to deny those states even more problematic right now and as we go forward.  (3) Clinton has momentum, for whatever that's worth.  

tammya, still working on that book I see. I am between classes now.

Dismissive again, Roid.  This time to me personally.  Using another sports metaphor, that would be "par for your course."  

tammya@udel.edu writes:

"According to your profile, I (Ph.D.) should be an Obama supporter.  I've been told by my colleagues, that "I'm smarter than that, i.e., to support Hillary." One even said to me, "you're intelligent, Tammy, and we know who to vote for."  What is the implication of that comment?  How do you think that played with me?  I was insulted."

And well you should feel insulted - that is about as classically sexist as it gets. AY-YIYI! Men: they'll never fail to do as they're programmed.

Frankly tammy, I'm insulted by all the women in my generation who think that putting a woman in the White House, or even having the chance to, is sufficient reason to nominate Hillary Clinton.  When I asked one such who said I should feel the same way because I have two daughters (neither at risk for falling into the under-class), "What about other people's kids who are dying in Iraq?" she replied, "They had a choice."  I was struck dumb at that point, a rare condition for me.

I am Jewish.  Do you think it makes me proud that Henry Kissinger was the first Jewish Secretary of State?  It makes me ill.  He should be locked up for war crimes and the fact that I share anything at all with him embarrasses me.  When Gore picked Lieberman as his running mate, do you think I was proud of that?  No.  I put my head down on my desk and cried, literally, because all I could think was, "We're gonna lose this election."  If Obama were running as the "representative of black Americans," he would have gotten nowhere.  He is an American, who is a man and who is black and who is running for president.  Indeed, he has bent over backwards to prevent himself from being tagged as the candidate of blacks, and they have been astute enough not to embrace him as "their" candidate.  Yet women feel perfectly free to be publicly sexist and claim that Hillary must be supported because she is a woman.  

I would be happy to vote for a woman for president, or anything else.  I voted for her twice already.  I have put several women in office by organizing their nominations and overseeing their campaigns.  If someone wants to claim that Hillary is qualified to be president based on something she has done or some personal quality that she displays, so be it. But I find it shameful that in the year 2008 we have Democrats who are prepared to say openly, with no evident embarrassment, that Hillary Clinton should be president because she would be the first woman president.

He sorry about that last paragraph I pasted in from tammy's post.  I put it in the message window so that I could see it while responding to it and neglected to delete it before hitting send (what with the view veing so cramped).  The last paragraph is all tammy, not me, and is what I was commenting upon.

Tammy,

I am dismissive of factual claims made contrary to the available evidence, regardless of who makes them.  

I don't see anything dismissive in Roid's post (i.e. dismissive in the bad sense, on personal grounds.)  While it's probably a good idea to avoid poking sticks in each other's eyes in this Obama-v-Clinton struggle, we shouldn't let debate be stifled by hypersensitivity either. And for what it's worth, I'm a woman and a feminist.

I think Tammy is onto something as well, and I will back up her claim that Roid's posts are dismissive.

Mostly, what I think she is on to, is the "non-factual" and "chaotic" nature of this election. Where Roid goes wrong, and where he is dismissive, is in the use of "facts" and "logic" as ways to give an objective sheen to what are merely his subjective preference for Obama. Not to say that there is not some truth in the things he quotes, but the overall truth of it is nonetheless the same as saying Hillary sucks and you're stupid for supporting her. Can't you see the FACTS?!

The truth of the matter is that the outcome of the race still lies in the perception of the american people. Some of this is coincident with math and probability, to be sure, but a large part of it is tied up in the subjective nebulous realms of "public perception." If Obama cannot keep up the myth of his eventual presidency through Indiana and beyond, then Hillary's myth may well supplant it.

My confidence in the latter candidate though, comes from precisely the lack of myths that have played a role in her life up till the campaign. She has always taken things as they come to her, and then dealt with them as they were. This is probably indeed why she is still running the race that she is, and apparently enjoying it. Obama, on the other hand, has always been a man who is trying to define himself, to create storylines about his history and how that ties in with the history of the American people. He is essentially trying to script our future. I'm glad that he's doing it for the forces of good, but frankly folks, I've had a bit too much of storylines and scripting over the last eight years.

Also, what is it with Obama supporters and sports analogies?

Thanks dbarr.  That explains why I thought Roid was dismissive.  Blackton, got a May 15th deadline. My TA took class today. Sweet!  Hope your classes were great.

Roid, I don't support Hillary because she is a female, although that's a bonus as much as Obama's being black to me is as well.  If I listed here why I support her, people might jump all over me.  And while I'd be happy to take it, and can easily do so, I'm off for the evening to play with friends.  

So one last point Roid (I enjoy bantering with everyone here, including you).  Can you concede that some African Americans might be supporting Obama just because he is black?  Do you think that's sufficient reason to nominate someone for the highest office in the land?  Identity politics are very, very strong.  Nothing cuts to the core of things more than who people are and how they want to be treated.  

dbarr, sorry, if there is truth in what he says then acknowledge it, if not then refute, but don't say there is some truth in it. That is meaningless. Address the points that are false. I agree his tone is dismissive, but that should be easy enough to get over, especially if you think facts are on your side. But if he is right, his tone is irrelevant.

And your second point: "She has always taken things as they come to her, and then dealt with them as they were." Is about a meaningless statement of affirmation I have ever heard. You want to know what, I also always take things as they come to me, and deal with them as they are. Can I be President too. I truly have no idea what that is supposed to mean as it applies to her, or even to myself. What "things"? Her husbands infidelity? The VRWC? Pardon me, but wasn't that more against Bill? And what trials has she faced as Senator? 6 years in the minority is indicative of pretty much nothing except that she has shown a proclivity to pander to the Republicans in anticipation of her White House run (flag burning, Iraq, etc.)

And please, the man from Hope, Bill Clinton, never created storylines himself. The problem with Hillary is her story is old, she is running on her sex and a nostalgia from old democrats for a magical return to the 90's. Her storyline is "been there, done that" Not a bad storyline but not very compelling either.

tammya, I agree that given the choice between two candidates of pretty much equal positions people will choose the one they identify with, so of course blacks will support a black as old white women will choose an old white woman. The problem arises when people say blacks will only support the old white woman in the general, but the old white women will never support the black.

I have said it before, given the state of the economy, if Hillary had won the nomination straight up (say the positions were reversed). She would win the general. She knows this. Everyone knows this. But sadly, for her, the positions are not reversed. She can't win straight up so giving the nomination to her holds greater risks then giving it to the first place finisher.

tammya:

In another post, you praised Clinton for going beyond old-school liberal feminism to incorporate postmodern tactics and perspectives.  Here you accept dbarr's defense of her (and of your reaction to Roid.) In this defense, dbarr praises Clinton for not offering "storylines", in contrast to Obama who is all about "scripting" political storylines.

This hardly strikes me as an accurate description of Clinton and Obama. But leaving that aside, if you really cared about Clinton's po-mo feminist cred, wouldn't you have to be disappointed at dbarr's description of her? Everything's a script, right? So whoever 'deploys' the more effective scripts is going to be the more effective candidate. A truly postmodern candidate would understand this above all. Or is your acceptance of dbarr's post an example of shrewd postmodern maneuvering -- a reaching for whatever account/story/argument seems like it might work at a given moment, in a given context, without having to cow-tow to those tyrannical myths of "principle," "consistency," or "empirical validity."

Sorry, boxofrox... I sense another howl coming on...

Dear dbarr, tammya, blackton, et alia,

When writing, I try to distinguish between things that I claim as facts, things that I claim as my opinions, and things that I claim as speculation.  When I make factual claims, I generally try to cite the evidence that I think supports my claim.  I go and I look things up, numbers, laws, UN resolutions, principles of subjects such as economics that enjoy broad acceptance in the field.  If it is evidence that I just carry around in my head from reading, I at least cite those things that I am relying on to make my argument.  Contrariwise, I object to wishes and opinions masquerading as factual claims.  The sign of a legitimate factual claim is some sort of evidence that is public in nature.  Absent that, or in the event of a distortion, misuse, or mis-citation of the evidence, the claim can and should be debunked.

When tammy wrote this:

"Obama has not won PA and there is a serious perception out there that he can't win big Demcratic battlegrounds and evidence that he can't win the white working class.  The PA vote demonstrated this.  (2) Florida and Michigan just became gobbs more important given the PA Clinton victory margin.  This makes Obama's actions to deny those states even more problematic right now and as we go forward.  (3) Clinton has momentum, for whatever that's worth."

I responded by citing a variety of types of evidence to the contrary.  What comes back is some sort of discussion of my tone, but no one says my evidence is mis-cite or that I argue inappropriately from the evidence I cite or offers anything as evidence to the contrary.  Instead there is a learned dissection of whether my tone is or is not dismissive.  What is one to make of that?

On the question whether Hillary would make a good president, it is a matter of opinion.  If someone says, "I like Hillary," I can respond, "I don't" with equal justification and also note that a large number of Americans don't like her either, as demonstrated by polls, not by my feelings, and that this is generally regarded by the politically astute as a weak basis for electoral success.  If someone says, "I support Hillary because she is a woman," I can respond that I don't pick the people I want to be president that way, and that while many people may do so, running explicitly on that basis is likely to be a failure because it alienates lots of people who do not belong to the chosen identity group, regardless of what it is.  Indeed, for most groups, it is completely socially unacceptable to claim to be the candidate of a particular identity group.  If Barack Obama had ever said that "the white candidates are ganging up on me," his campaign would have been over instantly.  It is an oddity of sexual politics that you can be a woman and say such things and not be laughed off stage.  Perhaps that is simply because women are in the majority and make it acceptable.  But even if you can say such a thing out loud and not instantly destroy your candidacy, I believe it ultimately does destroy the rationale for a candidacy and I personally find it obnoxious.

On the subject whether Hillary has any possibility of being the nominee, that is not merely a matter of opinion.  There is a wealth of evidence available by applying poll results that are usually reasonably accurate (certainly across many trials) to the delegate selection process that make it, to me, pretty obvious that she has no possibility of being less than 150 delegates behind.  Her own campaign has acknowledged that she cannot catch up.  A similar exercise shows that it is unlikely in the extreme that she could win the popular vote.  And resort to poll evidence shows that claims that Hillary would be the stronger candidate in the general have now coherent factual basis.  Such evidence as exists is to the contrary.

If you have evidence to recite and an argument to make to refute me, go right ahead.  I'm always wiling to learn something new.  If not, then I don't know what you're bellyaching about.  

And, by the way, when I say, as I have many times, that I think Hillary would be a poor candidate and a poor president if elected, I cite my reasons.  And when I scoff at claims that she is "experienced, tested, vetted, ready Day 1," I cite my reasons for that too.

I wonder, what, in the context of identity politics, is the counterpart of the word "feminist" for any other identity group?  I cannot think of one.  There are words for being anti a group, words such as racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, anti-semite, that we regard as pejorative.  But for what group other than women can you claim openly to be an "ist" in favor?  And what does this unique rhetorical dispensation imply?  Is it a claim of special privilege? Is that why it is possible openly to declare that one is running for office as a "representative of women" but cannot run for office, in America anyway, explicitly as the representative of any other group?

Hi Hemlock.  I connected with Dbarrs first paragraph above.  I think Roid confuses his own opinion with facts and then dismisses my (and others) posiiton and others if they don't cite the "info' he deems credible.  Point: he's not in the position to judge who's posts are valid and whose aren't.  

I still think Hillary is a po-mo feminist.  I'm not sure I understand your text about that whole thing.  Maybe you can email me about it.  Happy to hear it.  Roid doesn't seem to get that the disrespect he feels for women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman, could easily be applied to African Americans who vote for Obama because he's black.  For some reason, Roid seems to hold women to a different standard.  

roid,

Counterparts include "multiculturalist" and "nationalist," where "nationalist" refers to a minority cultural or racial group.  In American politics, candidates wouldn't label themselves with these terms if they wanted to make any political headway. But in some places, like Canada, multiculturalism and sub-nationalism are influential in politics -- for example, in the conflict between federalists and Quebecois nationalists.

Neither would an American political candidate ever call herself a "feminist" if she wanted to make political headway. (I doubt Clinton would ever use the "f" word, precisely because it would alienate so many people.) I also doubt she'd ever claim to be running as a "representative of women." She appeals to her gender as a reason for supporting her in more subtle ways, e.g. by talking, in her PA victory speech, about all the daughters of voters who will look at her campaign and "see that they can be anything." ( I only wish she had added: "*if* they happen to be married to an ex-president who controls many of the levers of power in the Democratic party.") Anyway...

You ask what the term "feminist" implies and whether it's a claim for special privilege. For me, feminism is the view that no individual's freedoms or basic chances for living a fulfilling, flourishing life should be limited because of his or her sex or gender. This is an abstract formula: it leaves lots of room for disagreement about its policy implications and also about the ways in which (and extent to which) gender inequality persists today. But it doesn't define feminism as a set of claims for special privilege. There are many different types of feminism, however, (just as there are of "conservatism" and "liberalism") and some variations do advance what might be called claims for special privilege. I personally think these variations are highly problematic. Fortunately, they're not that common/popular among feminists any more.  

By the way, I sympathize with your frustration at the preceding dissection of your "tone". Your posts were not dismissive.

Hi Tammy. Thanks for the reply.  I agree that Hillary is a po-mo feminist. I just think that's a bad thing, since it basically seems to mean that she doesn't accept that there are any appropriate ethical limitations in politics. Since, in the postmodern view of things, social reality consists only of "power struggles" or "language games" or "competing regimes of truth/power" (depending on whose brand of postmodernism you prefer), it makes good sense to say or do whatever you can to get what you want (power.)  I was being ironic in my post, but conveying irony isn't my strong suit. (Sorry.) In any case, it's not that important.

You write: "I think Roid confuses his own opinion with facts and then dismisses my (and others) posiiton... if they don't cite the "info' he deems credible.  Point: he's not in the position to judge who's posts are valid and whose aren't."

Of course he doesn't have the final authority to judge whose posts are valid and invalid; but no single post-er does. That's the whole purpose of having a debate in which different people offer competing arguments that appeal to different bits of information. Everyone gets to judge for themselves whose information is most credible and whose arguments are most persuasive. There's nothing dismissive about putting forward contestable information/arguments or about interrogating the credibility of information or arguments put forward by others.

"Could Hillary Actually Win North Carolina?"

Nope.

To reiterate roid's original gripe in this thread, the very existence of this post by JZ gives further evidence that political journalists have nothing further of actual interest to say about the Democratic nominating contest.

You live in DC Jason Z, don't you?  Why don't to get out of the TNR offices and do some local reporting that might be of interest to us nationally?  What's going on with that new, young, female, Korean-American school superintended?  Is she making effective changes?  Or does the NEA and the DC bureaucracy have her hamstrung?  And what about DC's semi-out-of-control HIV epidemic?  I know that last year the city started promoting universal testing--a unique move on the part of a municipality.  How's that all going?   Are people actually getting tested?  If so, does anyone think it has made a dent in infection rates?  If you wanted you could tie such a story back to Jeremiah Wright's outrageous HIV-came-from-the-CIA statements.  It might help people to see how it might make you a little paranoid when you see 1 in 20 people in your neighborhood getting hit with this fatal disease when over in Georgetown and across the Potomac, the number is more like 1 in 1000.  Or maybe you could tell us more about the DC gun law, what it was designed to accomplish, about the sociology of gun ownership in DC, who has guns and who gets shot and why and would a handgun ban do anything to keep the gangbangers from capping one another with the gun-happy Old Dominion right next door?

Just a few suggestions.  Anything, really, to save me from the pain of more speculative blather about the Democratic primary.

superindendant, I meant

Clinton winning here in NC?   I sure wonder how.  And the Edwards do not garner that much clout around here.  While Mrs. Edwards is liked, I don't think she'll sway many voters here in the Raleigh area.  I see vastly more support for Obama here in Raleigh than I do for HRC.  Most don't care much for her around here.  The support for Obama is reasonably strong but the dislike/distaste for HRC is even stronger. Like I said before, there's an irrational dislike (hatred?) of HRC in North Carolina I never really understood.

I could easily be wrong, but even the more respected political writers for the state's big papers don't see her having much of a chance.  She's spending time here but her TV advertising has dropped off to almost nothing since last week.  I still see a huge number of Obama ads here in the Raleigh/Durham TV market.  And they're "Tep "ads, exclusively on economic issues (textile/furniture plant closings, trade issues, gasoline prices, health care, pensions).  I rarely see any mention of the war except when both HRC and BO mention about pulling troops of Iraq.

Bill Clinton is spending a lot of time in North Carolina though but away from the big cities for the most part.  So far.