So what?

As of this moment, 12:40 pm EDT, the net delegate gain for Hillary out of PA-IN-NC is 2, but 11 delegates are as yet unaccounted for.  Looking at the popular vote tallies, I would expect that gain of 2 to disappear by the time all are accounted for, with the possibility of a a net gain by Obama of 1.  

Obama has a pledged delegate lead of 164-167 and there are only 217 left to select.  He has a popular vote lead of 784,000 with about 3 million votes left to be cast in the remaining races.  Hillary would need an aggregate of 63% of the remaining votes to cover that deficit, a 26% margin.

That's why russert called the race over.  What's with TNR?  Why are you futzing about a couple of delegates plus or minus in IN when there is a much bigger story?

Obama in NC by 15%, Clinton in IN by 1%. She had to win both, and nearly lost both. She's done, even if Obama doesn't pull out a narrow win in IN.

Then there's the provisional ballots.

I didn't hear that all of Gary was in -- you sure about that?  He picked up another 5,000 after 12:25.  Anyway, as roid says, big deal.  We're talking about one delegate, and a one-delegate, 1-point win in Indiana is not going to do much for her.  (A 1-delegate, 1-point win in Indiana for *Obama* would make more of a difference because he would have pulled off a sexier upset, but doing this well is almost as good.)

Right now, as of 1:10 am, MSNBC called Hillary the "Apparent" Winner of IN, and CNN essentially declared her the winner.

Meanwhile, curiousness:  On MSNBC, Chuck Todd talks about the Gary, IN Mayor (pro-Obama) and the Hammond, IN Mayor (pro-Clinton) playing chicken with turning in their numbers to "see how much they need."  Meanwhile, the Lake County votes comes in bunches of 28%, 56% and 99% while the two mayors spar on CNN.

Oh, the Chicago suburbs...

Good call. She got it.

Clinton won Indiana, but there can be no doubt any longer after tonight that she has lost the Democratic nomination and any chance of becoming the first woman president.

I'm so thankful, because in my view Hillary Rodham Clinton is obviously a person of low moral character, and her presidency will would've doubtless set back the cause of feminism and women's rights at least 20 years.  She didn't deserve it, and I'm glad that the majority of American people agree that she doesn't have what it takes to lead this country.

It's so much better to have someone of high moral character, who associated with a black fascist preacher and chose Zbigniew Brzezinski as his advisor.

Yes, sleepyavl, now we can revel in good feeling and be borne aloft by Obama's rhetoric. I have this visceral - and intellectual - disdain for Obama. He was talking again last night as if he is the second coming of politicians, as if he can bring the change that other candidates for president had promised but did not deliver on.

Limbaugh wins Indiana, not Clinton.

Easily 23,000 Republicans thought highly of themselves by voting for a candidate they hate.

Obama is back.

Limbaugh wins Indiana, not Clinton.

Easily 23,000 Republicans thought highly of themselves by voting for a candidate they hate.

Obama is back.

Limbaugh wins Indiana, not Clinton.

Easily 23,000 Republicans thought highly of themselves by voting for a candidate they hate.

Obama is back.

Limbaugh wins Indiana, not Clinton.

Easily 23,000 Republicans thought highly of themselves by voting for a candidate they hate.

Obama is back.

sleepyavl: "black fascist preacher"

WOW!!!! Racist often?!?! You've spent way too much time drinking Faux News kkkoolaid; you should go crawl back under the hole from which you kkkrawled out and the decent people to the important work of thinking for themselves.

LR: you know the definition of a cynic?  "One who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."  Sleepy is beyond help, but you have shown yourelf to be a learned man.  The "second coming" talk is unbecoming, even in the bitterness of defeat, of someone who reads philosophy, as you do.

Remember that moment in the 1980 election when Kennedy was asked, "why are you running for President". and he could not answer?  Well, Obama answered it.  It is the highest office in the land; it is an office imbued with the awful responsibility of a head of government, but also the awesome aura of the head of state; it is - and, as a non-American, I say this with chagrin - the office of the leader of the Free World.  To want to reach for that office, you better have a reason other than overweening ego or techncal competence.  You have to want to transcend mere politics.

I don't like political rhetoric, except in history books.  But I reserve my disdain for someone like W, who has the intellectual curiosity of a gnat and the moral depth of a moose in heat.  

Remember what Churchill said?  (Incidentally, another man who was disdained in his time for his rhetoric and thought of as a dangerously Messianic figure.) "We all worms; but I do believe I am a glow-worm."  Well, you gotta be a glow-worm, and you gotta know it, to run for President.  And if, being a glow-worm, you also want to at least try to bring some light to the world around you, it is to be commended and not condemned.

lib ref:

if it pains you that much to place your vote for a sincerely decent human being that is smarter than you, just vote McBush and be done with it.

icarusr: well said.

Icarusr: Yes, I have cited Oscar Wilde's aphorism for lo these many years. Believe it or not, I have an astonishing amount of hope coiled up within me for someone who is midddle - aged. But hopes excessively raised and then not fulfilled can bring in their wake precisley the sentiment you disdain, as Leon Wieseltier eloquently reminded us of last year in one of his sceptical pieces on Obama. When I invoke the second coming trope, here I'm exaggerating for effect (what nobody else exaggerates on this site?) and also being a bit ironic.

Bernard Shaw, but who's quibbling? ;-)

Wieseltier and eloquent do not fit well in a sentence.  In fact, I doubt you really think so as well.  If I said, "as Oscar eloquently put it", you'd think it redundant; if I said, "as Dan Quayle eloquently put it", you'd know I'm being mischievous; if I said "as Gerald Ford eloquently put it", I'm being ironic; but Wieseltier?  It just sounds forced.  

Exaggeration is good; but this particular "trope" has been used to bludgeon and belittle his supporters as mindless cultists; this is why I thought its use by you someone unbecoming, even if for effect or irony.  

"But hopes excessively raised and then not fulfilled can bring in their wake precisley the sentiment you disdain"

I think the mistake is that people assume we are per se hopeful for Obama. I cannot speak for everyone, but myself and people I know and have talked with are not so much hopeful that Obama is the political messiah as we are hopeful in bi/anti-partisan coalitions vis a vis the realpolitik dominant for the last 15-20 years. I have thought, since I was old enough to vote, that the spectre of realpolitik and partisanship could be the downfall of America as we know it; the events of the past 11-15 years have reinforced this though repeatedly. I find my fear of the consequences of continued realpolitik an incredible source of motivation to support BHO, more so than the candidate's apparent charisma.

I never doubted that Obama is human and will make mistakes; he's made several so far, and will probably make more in the months and years to come. I had enough let-down for one lifetime with Bill in the 90's; he seemed to have a basic decency and classiness, but turned out to be a silver-tongued philanderer. Obama has never claimed to be perfect, and frequently inserts states into his speeches like "flawed messenger" in order to remind people. He has claimed a platform of bipartisanship (change Washington), and focusing on issues and I think he has delivered on these things, although there has not been as much opportunity to exhibit bipartisanship as there has been to sticking with issues.

In fact, I am very impressed on the "sticking with issues" thing because even when he unloaded on Hillary in PA (it was brutal), I though that, overall, the ads were remarkably devoid of cheap shots, even when the cheap shot was painfully obvious.

I presume that, in the coming months, we'll have more opportunities to witness his bipartisanship in action; but I do not get my hopes very high because I am a little underwhelmed at the number of possible scenarios where this issue can be centralized during a GE campaign except as "rhetoric".

Icarusr: I am baffled as to why you would doubt that I think that Leon Wieseltier is eloquent. Rarely has any writer so instructed, challenged and especially, moved me. And I say that as one who sees LW as too philosophically foundationalist. That you should write like Wieseltier.

Icarusr: I am baffled as to why you would doubt that I think that Leon Wieseltier is eloquent. Rarely has any writer so instructed, challenged and especially, moved me. And I say that as one who sees LW as too philosophically foundationalist. That you should write like Wieseltier.