"But remember donors: Not all of your contributions will be used to compensate the Clintons' personal accounts. Some will be used to pay the millions of dollars they still owe Mark Penn. "

That's just beating a dead horse...ummm....I mean kicking her while she's down.

Yeah, but what about all the money she owe's the "little people", you know the blue and white collar workers who provided the goods and services to her campaign events?  Nice way to show your support to your constiuency, Hill.

The bad news: Hillary has to pay herself back. The total is up to $11.4 million. Even if she ends her campaign today (ha!), she will still have to spend the rest of the year fundraising to retire that debt and thereby avoid breaking campaign-finance laws. From here on out, every dollar Hillary raises is a dollar taken away from other Democratic campaigns across the country, including the Democratic campaign for president.

In 2006, Hillary unnecessarily sucked tens of millions of dollars out of the Democratic funding pool. Probably cost Democrats one Senate seat and at least two House seats. What will Hillary's pay-herself-back fundraising cost the party this year?

This has been my experience with this campaign.

Hillary: Graceless.

Her rank and file supporters: Full of Grace

Obama: Graceful.

His media and blogging supporters: Graceless

The gloating sort of makes me want HRC to stay in, beat Obama 65-35 in WV and then get out. It would be just out of spite, but that's what all the gloating and taunting is going to get you. Hate her all you want, but she got roughly 48% of the vote, mock her and her supporters and watch what happens.

Humility is appealing, this kind of hubris from supporters of a candidates who lost blue collar whites 2-1, is what makes many think this is going to end with a loss.

Peter,

Go read the comments on Taylor Marsh's site and tell me again her supporters are full of grace.

Is that right?  The debt must be retired even by a losing campaign?  I see that if it becomes a de facto donation if the debt isn't paid, and that would be unacceptable--for winning candidates.  But what if a campaign implodes so completely there's no hope of ever raising enough money to pay off its debts?  It's hard to see how the law could REQUIRE a failed candidate to raise all the money needed to retire his campaign's debts.  There are easily imaginable circumstances when such a feat might simply be impossible.  Also in this circumstance there would seem to be little worry that the loan could somehow buy influence.

And what about the money Clinton leant her own campaign?  Isn't legal for a a rich person to give her own campaign millions, for the obvious reason that its impossible to purchase influence from yourself?  Why should a self-loan be treated differently?  Couldn't she just say, 'I, the lender, am retroactively making my loan a gift?'  

Please understand, I'm not saying the law isn't as you describe it, Rhubarbs.  It's just that if this is how the law operates, it seems an ill-conceived law indeed.

jeez Peter, a bit tetchy are we? It is just politics, nothing personal. Do you get so worked up if your sports team loses or do you deal and get on with your life? Now if you want to act like a child and vote for McCain out of spite, by all means do, but be prepared to live with the consequences. I am a swing voter who loves McCain personally and think he will govern as a Conservative Democrat (which is what I am) so your spite won't bother me. But to cry, we made you vote for McCain because we hurt your feelings? Please, talk about childish.

Peter-

I agree totally that gloating is unbecoming.  I agree less about your characterisation of the supporters of either camp - as with any generalisation, it has its exceptions, even if the rule is correct, and I am not sure it is; but that is a personal view.

The obverse of gloating is, of course, bitterness and anger, and not in the sense of Obama's comments.  Last night, two public faces of "supporters of Hillary", Lanny Davis and Paul Begala, demonstrated bitterness alongside which the comments here pale in comparison.  It does not make gloating any more attractive; it does suggest, however, that in the observations of many of Mrs. Clinton's supporters, there is a manifest "invisible glass house" syndrome that, to say the least, chagrins the supporters of Mr. Obama.  Add to that what you yourself have observed as the gracelessness of Mrs. Clinton, and some "gloating", as you call is, becomes understanding, though still unjustifiable.

As for this particular post - there is nothing gloating here, only concern.  The outcome of this race has not been in doubt for some time, and yet, Mrs. Clinton pressed on - leave aside her reasons for now.  The result of that Quixotic quest is going to be a drain on Democratic resources in the coming General Election.  If you do not agree that $11.4 million to Hillary is $11.4 million less for others, please say so and say why.  If you do, the point stands, gloating or not.

aero, I believe that Hillary would face legal difficulty if her "loans" became "gifts."

But more than legal necessity, I believe that Hillary will prefer to continue raising money to retire (most of) her campaign debt in order to be in position to contest the NY governorship in 2010 or her own reelection in 2012.

Blackton, Go back and read your own comments about Clinton. I can only imagine the vitriol you would be spewing if Obama lost. The venom you were spitting out when he won was bitchy enough.  You'd be kicking dogs, shaking your fists at the heavens, and then refusing to take your nap or eat your animal crackers.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign being declared effectively dead by one and all, it is worth reflecting on what Hillary Clinton gained by staying in the raise for the past two months and change. Primarily, she managed to graft Bill

icarusr, I admire your sentiments, but why confuse passionate supporters with the Obama? Who really cares what we few people at TNR talkback think? And why deny human nature. When the Giants won the Superbowl damn right I gloated, for about 15 minutes and then let it go. After this all settles down all the hurt feelings will go away. Life goes on. I long ago got over Bush winning twice.

Peter1943, your comments are crisp and incisive. A lot of people have not done themselves proud in this electoral season. It is depressing, you know; people are crochety and then some even when they are well - fed. These same people will often tut - tut about some conflict in the world and say "why can't people get along?"

Peter-

Re Hillary's supporters, again - did you see Mayor Fuckwit of Hammon on Fox last night?  The fact that John King and Wolf Blitzer were blathering about why the vote count from Lake County was not coming in in drips and drabs but in torrents and waves was one thing - and the poor mayor of Gary seemed completely out of it.  But on the basis of no information, no evidence, no suggestion - nothing - Mayor Fuckwit was alleging "an appearance of impropriety" and then "an appearance of electoral fraud", because the numbers were coming in late.  His hamlet had reported right after 630, and Gary was holding off to report on both absentee and machine-read ballots, and this clown, this self-declared supporter of Mrs. Clinton, was alleging "an appearance of" fraud, on the part of fellow Democrats - all the while saying, "I am not saying there is fraud."  Like, "I am not suggesting you are a child molester, but the fact that you are holding the hands of a two year old while walking him across the street - well, there is an appearance of impropriety there."  

Grace?  Last night the one thing that was not on display on the part of Hillary's supporters was grace.

peter,

You're right about the gracelessness of gloating, but I agree with Blackton that your one-sided characterization is a bit  blinkered. You don't even have to go as far as Taylor Marsh's web site. Try MyDD. Or look at yesterday's exit polls in which more Clinton supporters (28 percent, I believe, to Obama's 25) said they would not vote for the Democratic nominee if their candidate lost.

Supporters on both sides have gloated, supporters on both sides have seethed in defeat, which is one reason why it's been no fun to visit choir-preaching sites like DailyKos or MyDD. Though I did notice that last night on both of those sites the calls for reconciliation had begun, and they were on the whole well received.

I'm no fan of the "unity ticket" idea, but Obama's supporters will need to do all they can to turn their internecine enemies into partisan allies. But a lot of that reconciliation also depends on Hillary. If she loses gracefully, it will be much easier for Obama's supporters to show grace in victory.

Peter:

Please. The gloating hasn't even started. The day she drops out - now that will be "graceless" gloating!

People:

Campaign loans to self don't turn into illegal gifts if they're not paid back. Just ask Steve Forbes, or any of the dozens of self-financed Senate candidates.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that money could have been a gift or donation, and it still wouldn't be illegal. That's the way it works in local campaigns. You can spend as much of your money as you want in your own campaign. The constitution says so.

The reason people "loan," instead of donate, is that they can use whatever money is left once the campaign is over to "loan" themselves back. If there's money left in the campaign coffers and no outstanding debts, the money has to be donated to charities or other campaigns.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works..someone can correct me if they know better.

alex:

you're right. They can use their own personal money to pay off the loan if they want.

Virignia.  The graceless gloating after she drops out will be a waste of time and energy.  As I've written before, the middleclass intelligentsia needs to rise above the Jerry Springer-like exchanges and start convicing people why the progressive agenda works for all, including groups Obama still is having trouble with.  

On another note, I'm really tired of the macho political spatting here at TNR.  A true example of Connell's ascendant masculinity in action.

After last night, I'm ready to support Obama and do MY share of convincing the women, working class whites, and other Clinton supporters why they should sign on to Obama.  I want a MANDATE in the fall.  No simple piddily win will do it for me.  I want a clear message sent: Conservatism is Dead!  Being a LIBERAL is a good thing!!!!!!  

peter, double standards baby, I never claimed not to have them. Let me repeat one thing though, I don't live in the United States, this to me is a sporting event or a movie, it is all good fun. I would certainly never kick a dog on Hillary's account, though there are certainly enough mangy ones around here to kick on their own account.

Well, at least we know why she was pleading for donations in the midst of her "victory" speech last night.

Peter, you don't even have to leave this site to see how absolutely devoid of grace many of HRC's supporters are. Some of the most venal, petty, childish anti-Obama crap around has been hurled on these very Web pages by desperate Hillary shills like ... well, everyone knows their names.

Tammya: classic.  Great post.  Just one quibble re "groups Obama still is having trouble with".  Still having trouble with because Hillary is still in the running.  The GE campaign has not begun yet and there is no evidence that Obama would continue to have trouble with those groups once the election gets going.

In fact, the Indiana results were telling.  The only demographic Obama did not carry - and by a wide margin at that - was the over 65 crowd.  Pretty good, that.

Just to add my voice to those who experience Hillary's supporters as not only graceless, but malignant. I was a Hillary supporter and donor until first Bill mouthed off about Jesse Jackson, which to me seemed clearly to be race-baiting, and second, when I heard Lanny Davis spinning(lying) about what I heard with my own ears. I became an Obama supporter in that instant.

The spinning and deceit and underhandedness of the Clinton campaign--and exit polls in Penn, Ind. and NC all showed that the American people recognized that Hillary was far and away the primary garbage thrower--have really turned people off to the Clintons and their surrogates and apologists. If they now want us to be nice, how bout if they demonstrate that they will not stick a knife in our backs. Plus the Clinton supporters keep telling us that being nice is a sign of weakness.

Well said, Tammy.  

But, and this isn't gloating- woody brought up Hillary shills (Shillaries?  I hate protmanteaus).  Did anyone else almost feel bad for Lanny Davis last night?  Even the Hillary people on CNN didn't buy his crap.  

Bone: Feel bad for Lanny Davis?  He's a jackass and a moron.  There is defending your candidate, there is spin, there is lying, and then there is Lannydavising: telling woppers in a bitter tone and with a drawn face such that even your friends tell you to shut up.  What amazes me - just like with Bill's performance - is that Mrs. Clinton thinks these kinds of appearances are helpful to her cause.  And the question that keeps coming back in my mind: if she is this bad at picking and managing her spokespeople, how will she staff the WH and her Cabinet?  The question answers itself.

Sabatia: There with you.  I rooted for her until South Carolina - after Bill's stomach-turning performance, the gauzes were lifted from my eyes.

Tammya: Belng a liberal is a good thing but being a liberal - to me - is also a thoughtful thing, which entails more than just cheerleading for our side. Further: did you miss Obama saying that the position of the Republicans on regulation has not infrequently been better one?

This thread just furthers my belief that most of Obama's white supporters are motivated more by hatred of the Clintons than feelings for their canddiate -- here Obama is 1) all but assured of winning the nomination and 2) showing real weakness with key demographics he'll need to win (and Jews are only going for him over McCain 60-40, compared to 75-25 with Kerry Bush).  In other words, every vote counts, but the piling on Hillary continues.  What did she say last night that was so offensive?  Or so off-putting about this loan--last month people were mocking her for not ponying up more of her/their money.  

As for class, a welcome member of this discussion group, virginiacentrist, has written the wish that Hillary Clinton "goes straight to Hell" and has repeatedly cracked jokes about Clinton's elderly supporters dying before the fall election.  Marty Peretz has thrown various epithets at Hillary Clinton the effect that she's not human (Andrew Sullivan has written the same thing).  If somebody can point to something pcostello or other HRC supporters have written that is an iota as offensive, I'd like to see it.

lymon1: "As for class, a welcome member of this discussion group, virginiacentrist, has written the wish that Hillary Clinton "goes straight to Hell" and has repeatedly cracked jokes about Clinton's elderly supporters dying before the fall election."

virginiacentrist has also writen that someone needs to leak some stuff about Bill Clinton's cheating. That's how Obama supporters practice clean, lofty-minded uniting politics. Sounds like Karl Rove to me.

Well, lymon, constantly referring to us as "Obamabots" and "kool-aid" drinkers is really offensive.  VC said he was kidding about the hell thing, and the elderly thing is, well, funny.  Sometimes we say funny things on the Plank.  

ANd please- I am a white Obama voter who is voting for him, not against Hillary.  When the campaign began I would have been fine with her as the nominee, but now she is showing her true colors.  She and her supporters have brought this race into a Karl Rove level.  So I do want to see her, and what her lying, phony, dirty Republican campaign represents, buried.  Yes, that is anger.  That is why I want her to lose, and for her and her husband and their high-priced advisors to be frog-marched upon a road of bones*.  But it isn't why I want Obama to win.

*This is an example of over-the-top humor.

Jesus, sleepy.  When VC said that he was talking about how dirty they have been and how we haven't.   Context, my friend.

Why am I defending vc?  He can do it far better than I.

I'm with Icarusr: Lannydavising goes beyond ordinary spin and is despicable. I haven't been able to stomach him since he used the word "landslide" several times during a short CNN appearance  to describe Clinton's 10pt Ohio win. It was an example of what David Brooks recently implied about the Clinton camp: there are no inner guardrails which limit their spinning. Then last night Davis tried to turn CNN's reasonable coverage of NC into a reason for outrage. Give me a break. I didn't hear a single CNN commentator call Obama's 14pts a "landslide." I feel more sorry for Hillary than I ever will for Lanny Davis.

Tammya is right: gloating will be a waste of energy and time. We don't need to put Hillary down. I hate the tactics she's used. But let's be honest: most of her policy proposals are great. And if Obama is going to sell himself as a "uniter", there's no better place for he and his supporters to start than in their own party.

I'm curious, though, Tammya: if "ascendant masculinity" is something that (understandably) irritates you, how did you feel about all the "testicle"-talk that was coming out of the Clinton campaign this past week, from Easley's put-down of so-called "pansies" to Carville's weird suggestion that Hillary has three balls and Obama only one?

I meant that I had an minor human sympathy for watching another human being contort himself so desperately and to no avail.   I mean, he is the hackiest of hacks, and I can't stand him, but still...

OK, I take it back.  It was awesome to watch even the CNN people call him on his garbage.

Hemlock.  I'm always troubled by the macho talk, not matter who does it.  It was a turning point for me when I watched her this past Sunday on ABC w/Steph.  She was not only verbally macho but also in disposition and posture.  Carville's comments are ridiculous.  He sounds like a teenage boy whose parents took away his Nintendo, Gameboy etc.  

Liberal R.  I'm not sure I understand you.  Clarify?

My courts colleague just told me on the way back from class that Hillary should stay in until she wins in Virginia, exit on a high note and throw everything behind Obama.  he predicts she'll want the next Supreme Court vacancy.  Any thoughts?????

Tammya- you're a class act and a breath of fresh air. Whenever I worry about what the number of people who voted for Sen. Clinton means for our Union, I think of you, and am relieved.

Bone: :-)

Tammy: two weeks ago she might possibly have expected quite a lot from an Obama administration - assuming he wins the General.  Even after her performance on Wright and the gas tax, she might have - might have - demonstrated grace by congratulating rather than "commending" Obama, and by going on the attack against McCain rather than harping on the stupid gas tax business - and, perhaps, by throwing an olive branch, "these past two weeks, we have shed more heat than light on the issues that affect all of us" - nothing too grovelly, but just an acknowledgement that the whole gambit was misguided.  But ... that was not to be.

She is a talented person; too bad abou the waste.

Hillary will not sit on the Supreme Court unless she is appointed by a Republican.

lymon1 said: there was Sleepy with the "black fascist pastor" comment earlier today. Then there was that pseudo-intellectual piece of garbage a short while back regarding how Tuskeegee was not really racist; as for voting preference, it started out For Obama, For McCain, For Clinton, but after watching both sides' primaries its now For Obama, Against McCain (not necessarily for Clinton); McCain lost me with his domestic/economic policy whereas Clinton, for all her nastiness, has some pretty awesome domestic policy ideas (like government funded student loans) that I'm really hoping Obama picks up once she concedes.

lib ref: first, Obama repeatedly identifies himself as a progressive, not liberal. second, he is trying to give credit where credit is due in order to show a willingness to judge ideas on their merits instead of which party produced them. Do you think he is wrong in any of the instances he has given credit to a Republican? He may be, but I have to agree with few instances I've seen so far (most notably regarding Bush on Africa).

tammya: I'm pretty sure she is going to go until she is mathematically eliminated from the candidacy, but I'm hopeful she keeps up this new tone. i think she is more of a Cabinet-level-position person myself although she might make a good Justice. (btw I ditto miceelf's sentiment, you are a credit to your candidate)

The best story I heard on tv today was, I think froma commentator at MSNBC.  She said she'd learned that the Clinton campaign was negotiating to get out of the race soon, if Obama would pay the Clinton debt.

That's the most credible reason yet I've heard for her to hang on.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks poor Chelsea is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.  

She's always standing there with that Wrigley Chewing Gum smile, neve saying anything on the platform.  

She may have Stepford implants.  Somebody check.

Chan,

She's their daughter.

EXCUSE ME!?!

GS -- I presume that's just a bad cut-and-paste and my comment got omitted?

Boneil, I don't think I've used the term "Obamabots" -- I probably have used "kool-aid" but not much and I think the term has been (no pun intended) dilluted from its origins.   In today's post I said "most" of Obama's white supporters, not all, and I wouldn't include you in my characterization.  But Karl Rove?  Where?  She unleashed the justice department to prosecute Obama?  Called him responsible and callous towards a close relatives cancer death?  I voted against her for dirty politics too, but there are degrees.  Marty Peretz and Andrew Sullivan have used tersm towards her we usually reserve for dictators and hardened violent criminals.  

Finally, I've tried in my comments about Obama to take blackton's admonishion to heart -- I've repeatedly credited him for running one of the classiest campaigns I can remember.  His supporters are -- mostly -- a different story.

Boneil deserves more than just my distinguishing myself:

Do most HRC supporters call Obama supporters "Obamabots"?  I don't think so, but even if they did, what is the worst you can spin that?  Falling for a cult of personality doesn't strike me the same as the charge flung at HRC supporters: racists, supporters of corruption, supporters of "monarchy," etc.  I think the attacks on HRC supporters have been a lot more character-based.  

And maybe I'm wrong about this, but if HRC had the nomination sewn up, would her supporters continue to pile-on Obama the way we've seen here?  I don't believe they would.  There's a true axe to grind going on here.  

lymon1:

You are probably correct, although I cannot positively confirm because its been a long, bad day at work and my brain is losing its ability to form coherent ideas. In fact, here comes the drool...

lymon,

I think you are most definitely wrong about that. As in, the most wrong thing I've ever seen posted around here in good faith.

If we could somehow reverse the two and it was Obama who'd been chasing the fantasy ever since Super Tuesday, HRC supporters would have been at least twice as strident in their calls for him to abandon the race and give Hillary what was duly hers. Hillary supporters would positively let fly with the charges of misogyny and sexism and anti-feminism nonstop, and everyone who dared suggest Obama continue to the end would be ostracized as much as possible. Honestly, I know you're a Clinton fan and I'm an Obama fan, but take a look around you.

What you seem not to understand, or you ignore it, is that many, many, many people disliked Hillary Clinton long before Barack Obama was even a twinkle in democracy's eye. She has done nothing in this campaign to change those people's minds. What she *has* done is turn off a lot of people who liked and respected her, and thought she took a lot of unfair crap in the '90s (like me).

Tammya: My point was just that liberalism, while a very good thing, can perhaps learn a few things from the summa of conservative thought and practice. Exempli gratia: (1) That there are limits to social engineering (2) That there are frequently unintended consequences of intended policies (that was the constant motif of the late publication, the Public Interest, at least - as Mark Lilla has noted - in its earlier incarnation before it battened on to dotty supply - side economics) (3) That power needs to be balanced and counterposed by other power (this precept has been constantly violated by the current radical administratiion and by unitary executive proponents (a great overlap exists between these two catagories) (4) That the Treaty of Westphalia can't be writ large over the whole world in some bloodless parchment fashion ((5) That markets function far better than command economies (6) That free trade is superior to protectionism (7) That comparative advantage is a little - understood concept and one that deserves to be better understood (8) That the Western Canon is not simply the will to power of a bunch of dead white males (though conservatives far too often have a Platonic view of the canon, one that is fairly fixed and immutable. Now Jamie Kirchick, over to you at the Contentions blog. Will you say some nice things about liberalism?