The third way she can leave is as an insignificant factor who can win a state by 30 points and still not make an impact on the outcome.

Whatever is going through this woman's mind can not be understood by rational, normal people.  Let's not overlook this fact.

She is never going to "leave."  She will be carried out, kicking, screaming, whining that she is a victim after she has LOST the nomination.  Not a minute sooner.

I'm going to cross-post this point: TNR online (both editors and commentators) gave Hillary Clinton and John McCain hell for their gas tax suspension pandering.  Justly deserved hell.  But what about the farm bill?  As David Brooks writes today, it was just as pathetic a pander, with the added effect of causing more starvation in Africa.  McCain, according to Brooks, has railed against it while Obama supported it.  (I don't recall if he said what Hillary Clinton did -- I think she supported it too, but her campaign now only exists to give brain-dead pundits material so they don't have to write about real issues).  

There won't be outrage about this though, because 1) we don't think of black Africans as fully human, 2) we aren't willing to pretend that black Africans are fully human and 3) we have a only-once-per-year quota for considering the "why do we subsidize farmers?" issue.  

lymon, McCain may have "railed" against the farm bill. But in the real world, he's not president, and he doesn't have a veto. In the real world, he is a senator, and he does have a vote to cast for or against legislation. McCain chose not to vote against the farm bill.

I know it's nice to denounce things, but your values aren't what you say. They're what you do. And it's simply false to say that McCain is "against" a piece of legislation he can't be bothered to show up and vote against.

The farm bill is a terrible bill, though not nearly so bad in its effects on the wider world as similar subsidies in Europe and Japan, but it's a non-issue in the presidential race because none of the candidates is actually against it. Well, except maybe Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

There are other options available, you know?

I think she'll stay in it until someone has a majority of delegates AND MI and FL are resolved, then bow out gracefully. I don't think its about her chances of winning anymore, its about playing out the hand.

Additionally, Hillary has done a scary good job on changing the tone of her campaign; she is making progress on eliminating some of the bad blood she was building up among her constituency. If she had taken a course like this one from the beginning, she would probably be the front-runner. And if the other shoe drops on Obama's supposed Dark Secret (the one the MSM is hiding, and no one will admit, but Fixed Noose knows its there) she'll be in a perfect place to step in.

lymon, yeah, Obama doesn't consider his black African brothers and sisters human, or his black grandmother either. Can you even see the earth from your high horse? We both know that the farm subsidies are ingrained in our system, and far too many farm state Senators have far too much invested in it.

And starvation in Africa is caused by a huge host of issues, Africa has more than enough arable land to support its inhabitants but when you have monsters like Mugabe destroying the agricultural sector, and when you have urbanization due to ethnic violence (diminishing the output of subsistence farmers who flee violence) then you should be a little careful about pointing fingers. Can more be done, absolutely, and do I agree with you about farm subsidies, sure, but throwing verbal firebombs ain't effective either.

She needs to play it out to the end, because doing so provides the only chance to legitimize Obama's win in the eyes of her half the party (by hopefully giving him both a popular vote and delegate advantage even with a fair seating of Florida and Michigan). If she leaves the race now, while she is winning so overwhelmingly in some important states and without a legitimate, good faith solution to Michigan  and Florida, it will look as if the party is simply trying to avoid putting their cards openly on the table and hide the fact that they fully intend to hand him the nomination no matter his standing in the popular vote and without reaching a fair solution to the problem of Florida and Michigan. Those who want her to quit the race apparently do not believe he can fairly win the popular vote and delegate advantage WITH a fair solution to Florida and Michigan, and are afraid of the consequences if this fact becomes too apparent.

The party is playing a foolish game that, unless Obama does go on to win the popular vote with a fair solution to Florida and Michigan, will have consequences not only in November but for a long time to come.

I know that Obama supporters believe that this is a year in which a Democrat can't lose -- and that a new coalition of affluent independents, moderate Republicans combined with a huge youth vote makes courting, respecting and honestly representing those voters who are now voting for Clinton -- working class voters, working women, older voters -- unnecessary. But this is exactly the same kind of thinking that led to the Democratic debacle in '72.

As a new study by American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, points out, the turnout in this year's primaries is not unique or at all predictive of what will happen in November. According to the study,  "total turnout likely won't reach the record set in 1972's primaries." (Overall turnout this year is 19.3 percent,  smaller than the 21 percent who turned out in 1972.)

Those were the primaries that gave us McGovern, of course, and his total disaster in the general election (winning only one state).  That historic loss occurred in large part because of Democratic voter resentment and apathy engendered by McGovern's divisive primary campaign --  a "reform" campaign that threw the most important traditional Democratic constituency (Big Labor) under the bus in an attempt to attract affluent independents and moderate Republicans.  

As the American University study points out, despite record breaking primary turnout, "In 1972, the year of the highest presidential primary turnout, turnout in the general election experienced the largest decline of any election since World War II" (when turnout declined because a large percentage of Americans were outside the country fighting that war).

Of course, history may not repeat itself. But so far much of the the thinking, rationalizations, strategy and tactics coming from the Obama camp are repeats of the thinking, rationalizations, strategy and tactics of the McGovern camp in '72. Including the conviction that a huge influx of new voters would (will) eliminate the need to appeal to traditional working class Democrats.

If Hillary's continuing campaign ends up legitimizing Obama's win, maybe that fate can be avoided. If she quits now, or, if the party ends up handing him the nomination despite his continuing electoral weakness and without finding a fair solution to Michigan and Florida, the possibility of unity is unlikely -- despite whatever committment the Clinton's make to Obama's campaign after the primaries.

Ah yes, the old wait for the dark secret strategy.  Maybe they'll find some more Moooslims in his past (cue screaming women).  

How leader-like, truly inspiring - almost  like Jesus himself.  Ooops, excuse me: Jesusita herself.  That's our Hill, always bringing out the noblest in us.

Sigh.

This is so embarrassing.  How about we get real, as Hillary says.  

One of the reasons people (certainly not just men, don't kid yourself)  are hesitant about women in power is the stereotype of women as irrational. And proud of it.

And/or inappropriately emotion-based in a professional setting (which I have seen countless times).  The stereotype continues:  emotion based grudge holding, blaming everyone else for their mistakes.  And then suing for sexual harrassment when they are fired.  

Sound famliar?  Me too.

I testified against the women suing in two sexual harrassment trials.  I'd do it again in a second, those women are much more toxic to feminism than any man could ever be.  This is who Hillary and her supporters have become: ideologically rigid, suing for sexual harrassment in the name of excusing themselves for their own poor choices and unprofessional behavior.  May her candidacy live in the infamy it surely will.

Well, for what it's worth, Clinton probably will not make up a lot on popular vote in Kentucky.   Voter turnout here in Lexington seems to be much lower than expected according to one of my precinct workers .

First, McCain didn't vote against the Farm Bill.

Second, there is no proof that subsidies for farming in the United States cause starvation in Africa. There lots of reasons that starvation exists in Africa - and there plenty of reasons to vote against subsidies in America -however, Africa's problems are not a consequence of US farm subsidies.

esmense; good posting except I am curious about some of that data. Is the total for both parties primaries or just the Democrats. Being that the Republicans have drawn in about 89 voters since the contest was resolved for McCain months ago it is understandable how those numbers will be way down. While I agree with your sentiments about finishing the process, not sure I agree with the analogy to 72. Nixon was the incumbent, the economy was not in recession, the nomination of McGovern occured in the early morning, etc. I just don't see how we can so easily fit one campaign from 36 years ago to now.

esmense,

Including the results of MI or FL is inherently unfair to every voter who voted in a bona fide election, and to the voters in both states who did not bother to participate because they were told that these were beauty contests only.  You cannot take a straw poll and "fairly" declare it to be an actual election after the fact.  The only FAIR solution is to continue to exclude those results as both states, the candidates, and the voters were all timely informed that they would not count.

What you really want is in UNFAIR resolution that gives Hillary some kind of benefit.  Indeed, there will be a cosmetic resolution of some sort -- unfair though it may be -- that seats some delegates from both states once it is absolutely clear that this will not affect the outcome.  That runs counter to the rules, is in that sense unfair, but will be acceptable by virtue of being harmless to the present race.  Whether the bad precedent of condoning violation of the rules will come back to haunt remains to be seen.

Although you present a tidy case that Hillary is continuing her campaign to nowhere in order to legitimate Obama's victory, I rather doubt that his her motivation.  She could accomplish that in a far more useful way by publicly accepting him as the nominee.  The proof will be in the pudding.  Even after Obama has secured a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of all of the delegates, I predict that Hillary will continue to "run" by undermining his candidacy in every way possible,  trying to persuade the public that Obama will lose the election in November and that only she can win it.

What will you say then?  Will this all be Hillary's contribution to the greater good of the Democratic party?  In Hillary land, every day brings another spin to justify what Hillary is doing in light of the obsolescence of yesterday's spin.  This reminds me of the old Stalinists who pushed the party line whatever it was.  If Stalin came out with a new party line that was diametrically opposed to the party line almost moments before, it mattered not at all.  The faithful dutifully took up the new refrain and the old line was immediately forgotten.  They didn't even bother most of the time to try and effect some kind reconciliation between the old and the new.  Just like the Hillaristas.

Hillary herself is just a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic wrecker and I predict that we will very soon see her, shorn of the rhetorical cover that she is still contesting a bona fide race, trying to do just that.

lymon,

My chocolate lab is very envious of you right now. We just walked around the neighborhood - he thinks of it as his kingdom, and when he makes the rounds it's like Sinatra breezing through the Sands casino (I'm his Joey Bishop) - and he didn't spray nearly as many fire hydrants and fences as you have with your Brooks column.

esnonsense,

What is this ridiculous stuff about the "party handing Obama the nomination depite his continuing electoral weakness?" Are you enlisted in Hillary's project of wrecking the party?  It is Hillary who is electorally weak, that is why she is losing and will shortly have definitively lost both the delegate race and the popular vote.

Tell us again, please, why the party is instead supposed to ignore the primary process on which it just spent half a billion dollars and then hand the nomination to Hillary, the candidate who will have lost by every metric, does worse in the polls, shows no potential to flip net electoral votes in her direction, cannot even pay her bills, and is the only candidate whose unfavorable ratings are higher than her favorable ratings?  Not to mention that, in her "great comeback" (in her mind and yours) she has gained no ground and has underperformed expectations in every state that she said mattered, TX, PA, IN, NC.

The Hillarista line is simply perverse.  No reality shall ever be permitted to intrude.

blackton:

Read again dude -- that comment isn't direct at Obama, but the media (including TNR online) who won't cover the insanity that is the farm bill (see how the other point isn't about Africa?).  That's far too remote a nexus to bash Obama with.  

mpatrickhendri, there is strong evidence that U.S. farm subsidies drive the poorest Mexican farmers off their land, which in turn leads even more poor Mexicans to look for economic opportunity in the nearest first-world country. (Hola, los Estados Unidos!) It's just that starving Mexicans aren't as sexy as starving Africans. Bob Geldof and Quincy Jones aren't exactly in a rush to record "Somos el Mundo."

As to the theory that Hillary must stay in until she really, really loses in order for her supporters to accept Obama as the nominee, that's a pretty damning view of Hillary. The test of a leader is whether she can persuade people to follow her even against their own prior inclinations. If Hillary really doesn't believe that she could endorse Obama at any time and in doing so bring her supporters with her, then she has no business running for president in the first place. There is all the difference in the world between a leader and a politician who happens to be supported by people whose opinions and tastes she follows. It's the difference between Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush.

Personally, I think that's an accurate view of Hillary -- she couldn't lead a chicken across a road with a green light and a rope -- but then again, I don't want her to be president. That anyone who might want her to be president would even consider that she is incapable of persuading her supporters to get behind a candidate from her own party who agrees with her stated positions on most issues is truly shocking. If one doesn't thinks Hillary can persuade her supporters to join her in supporting a like-minded candidate, then why the hell does one want her to be president?

What Clinton strengths? The strength to bully the media with stupid sexism hysteria? Because that is  all she's got:

(CNN) – A day after Sen. Hillary Clinton declared that the Democratic nomination fight was “nowhere near over,” polling data released Tuesday suggest Clinton is losing ground with key demographic groups that have powered her campaign so far.

Sen. Barack Obama’s 16-point lead over Clinton in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters comes from even higher support among groups that have been supporting him throughout the primary race, and from newfound support among several groups that have backed Clinton.

Obama leads or ties Clinton among women, Easterners, whites, adults with no college education, and Hispanics, with the New York senator’s support now below 50 percent in each group, according to Gallup. Both are backed by 47 percent of white voters surveyed, and Obama is essentially tied with Clinton – 47 percent to 46 percent – among Democrats whose education level is a high school diploma or less.

Clinton’s advantage among women overall seems to have evaporated, with Obama now holding a lead within the survey’s three point margin of error, 49 percent to 46 percent. Hispanics favor Obama over Clinton by 7 percentage points, 51 percent to 44 percent. And Obama now leads among voters in Eastern states by 9 percentage points over Clinton – 52 percent to 43 percent.

M.P.H.  Yeah, yeah, I heard the same kind of thing from the textile industry.

Woody -- zeesh, if this was an akita I'd cut you some slack, but a *lab*?  Did you spend any time training that dog?  

Mrs. Bombay fell in love with him faster than she ever did with me. (I blasted charm like a fire hose, sent roses, took her out to fine restaurants, offered thoughtful, caring advice on work and family problems, and basically danced as fast as I could. The Lab cocked his head and scooted across a pen on his ass and won her heart instantly. Maybe I should have done that.)

And while he is an idiot, he is a very lovable idiot.

"Hillary herself is just a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic wrecker and I predict that we will very soon see her, shorn of the rhetorical cover that she is still contesting a bona fide race, trying to do just that.

The above kind of rhetoric isn't political -- it is over the top, weird (especially in the context of comments about a leader and half the voters in the party one claims allegiance to) and says a lot about the emotional state of the poster personally but nothing about the political process that is taking place right now in the Democratic party.

It's really impossible to have an intelligent and useful POLITICAL discussion in the context of so much personal and detached-from-reality animosity.

So, you hate Hillary. Bully for you.

That really is the only point that comes across coherently in many of these kinds of rants. It is not a point that can be debated or that has anything to do with the political realities that must be dealt with, or the current and impending problems facing this nation.

blackton --

The primary turnout figures don't differentiate between Republican and Democrat -- this is total voter participation. But, '72 was a year in which the Republicans had an incumbent with no challengers -- so I think it is reasonable to assume that in that year, as in this one, the majority of the action was taking place in the Democratic primaries.

Very early on, I was struck by the similarities between this election and '72 -- initially what I was struck by was the raw and frequently hateful emotions being expressed by different factions WITHIN the Democratic party. I have not seen such disunity since 1972. That was the first election I was able to participate in -- I voted for Shirley Chisholm (still I believe the best presidential vote I've ever cast) in the California primary and, like many, many others of my generation, failed to turn out for the general election.  I later learned that my father, a dedicated labor liberal who had been an organizer during the Great Depression, also voted for Chisholm in the primary. He was outraged at the party for providing him with choices like Wallace and McGovern, men who were equally objectionable to him, although for wildly different reasons. In the general election he left the top of the ticket blank -- something almost inconceivable for such a dedicated Democrat.

I was too young, with too little political skin in the game, to be that emotionally engaged in the election in '72.  My Dad's incredible anger at the party, his feeling of disenfranchisement, wasn't something that I personally shared. But, I recognize it now in the emotions being expressed by many traditional Democrats this time around, especially working women -- who have been in recent years as important to Democratic victories as Big Labor was back in the 70s. That has made me do a lot of research into the '72 campaign -- reading contemporary reporting, reading some of the books that influenced the thinking of McGovern's strategists, etc. It has amazed me to discover how similar the thinking of the McGovern people at that time -- the arrogant assumptions about a "new" coalition, their conviction that it was a "Democratic year" in which any Democrat would inevitably win (based on the great unpopularity of Nixon and the war), the message of the McGovern campaign ("reform" that targeted his own party as well as the Republicans, very similar to Obama's "change" that once again targets his own party as well or as much as Republicans) and the strategy -- their dependence on higher than usual participation of young people, independents and moderate Republicans for wins in the primary races (and Wallace voters in those states where Wallace wasn't on the ballot), their preponderance of wins in heavily Republican Western states (and inability to capture voters in the larger industrial states), etc. -- was to the thinking, message and strategy of the Obama people today. Donna Brazile's incredibly foolish statement on CNN the other day, positiing a "new" coalition that will eliminate the need to depend on working class votes, isn't in anyway a "new" kind of political thinking. It is exactly the reasoning that led the McGovern campaign to defeat. 36 years ago.

Will this year be a repeat of '72? No one can know that. But we do know that the Obama campaign is doing many of the same things that led to disunity in the party in '72, and making many of the same assumptions that proved both very wrong and very costly in '72.  Perhaps condidtions are such that he can win despite the disunity. But win or lose, I think there will be consequences for the party.

I am continually amused by the intolerance of some Obama supporters (I well know about the pro-Hillary intolerants). Change? Yes we can ram it down your throats.

I wasn't attempting to have a discussion with you, esmense,  When the ostensibly factual premises of your post are so far removed from reality, there isn't anything to discuss.  One would first have to step through the looking glass into a topsy-turvy world in which the loser is winner, the winner is electorally weak (despite all of the objective evidence to the contrary), and Hillary is campaigning for the purpose of legitimizing Obama's victory.  And you claim all this is in aid of the party a majority (that's more than 50%, not less) of whose voters have chosen Obama?  

You are simply giving what support you can for the attempt by Hillary to wreck the party to aggrandize her ego and/or her future prospects as she sees them and give vent to her spite.  I'm not trying to discuss it, just call attention to the weird, unreal, over-the-top claims you make that are but the latest Hillarista spin.

If you were genuinely concerned about the party, you would be calling for Hillary to embrace the victor in the most gracious terms possible, not spinning her campaign to nowhere as the defense of Obama's prospects in November.

Over on The Spine, the amused liberal reformer just coined the neologism "fellabama," equating support for Obama with homosexual fellatio and intended as a slur on both.  Then he declared himself quite proud of this intellectual achievement.  So, when he talks about "ramming it down your throats" we should understand just the sort of perverse mixture of sexual slur and political slur that he has in mind.

What is most amusing to me is that the Hillaristas, who weirdly channel Hillary by adopting her persona in their posts, seem to think that if one supports Obama politically one is supposed to BE Obama, talk like Obama, dress in his political garb, or, for the really extreme Hillaristas, metaphorically have sex with him.

I will leave the weird personality transplants to them.  I support Obama for political and ideological reasons.  I applaud the fact that he has found rhetoric, themes, and tactics with which to thrash Hillary.  I don't aspire to become him.  He is not my guru, my messiah, or my spiritual leader.  He is a candidate for public office. Perhaps the problem is that, having invented the messiah slur against Obama and his supporters, the Hillaristas cannot understand why we do not play to the type they have cast for us.

roidubouloi --

Obama's strategy has, from the beginning, been to run against both traditional constituencies and the most recent national leadership of his own party, with a "change" and "reform" message. Such a strategy, aided by quirks in the Democratic delegate assigning process, may end up being effective in terms of winning the nomination (just as McGoverns "reform" message was in '72), but that win will naturally come at the cost of party unity. This is the inevitable outcome of this kind of strategy -- an outcome that has absolutely nothing to do with anything Clinton has done or can do. Or anything that any other Democratic politician has done or can do.

If you believe in his change message -- and believe he is correct in asserting that blame for our current problems must be laid at the door of the former Clinton administration as well as the most recent Republican administrations, and at the door of Boomer activists, most especially those older women who have fought on the front lines of social and cultural issues for the last 30 years, as well as working people and older people who have so far failed to embrace more affluent  American's notions of best economic policy -- then you must also believe that many members of the traditional Democratic coalition, and the leaders who have represented them, are THE problem and cannot be part of any solution.

Such an argument is an argument for DEFEATING, DISEMPOWERING AND DRIVING OUT (of the party) those constituencies and leaders. It is not and can not be an argument for unity with those constituencies.

So own up to it. These are people who the most basic rationale of the Obama campaign  argues should NOT BE REPRESENTED. Whose demands for representation stand in the way of progress as the Obama "movement" sees it.

You can't take that stance against these voters AND expect them to work to help your candidate. The logic of the Obama campaign message requires a new coalition that can win WITHOUT large numbers of traditional Democrats.

Unfortunately, win or lose, the primaries have demonstrated that Obama's coalition may simply not be strong enough to provide a victory without a great deal of help from the leaders and the constituencies he has run against.

Ironic, isn't it?

"fellabama," LR? Really? Yikes. And you seem so civil on the Plank and the Stump. I feel so duped.

esmense,

Your analysis of the Obama campaign is hysterical. Not funny hysterical, either.

esmense,

Whatever McGovern wanted to say about reform or anything else, the campaign in 1972 was about one thing and one thing only, the war in Vietnam.  The Republicans ran their "defeatocrat," "cut and run" theme, for the first time, quite successfully.  That's why they keep trying to play it again, and again, but the times have changed a little since then.

I really have no idea what you are talking about, none, when you say that Obama has run his campaign "against" anyone in the party or any of its constituencies.  His message has been that divisive politics that pit one group against another have served only to prevent as from solving our real problems, problems that require an engaged, supportive, and united citizenry.  The knock on him by his opponents is that this is much too general, or that it is pie in the sky.  It has never been, nor could it be, that his theme is anti-the iinterests of some constituency.  He hasn't even really made a point to mention just who it is that benefits form the divide and conquer strategy lest he be accused of waging "class war."  

Moreover, despite the frustration of many, including me, he has declined to respond in kind to Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy, even when goaded by her and his advisers who adopted the Republican meme that the failure to engage in dirty campaign tactics is evidence of weakness and the lack of capacity to lead.  

The only thing divisive about Obama is that he has been the target of Hillary's Republican-style, race-baiting attacks. Has that compromised some part of the Democratic constituency?  No doubt it has, which is just why it has been so thoroughly objectionable as the behavior of a Democrat in a primary campaign,  When the Republicans do it, we can attribute it to nasty Republicanism.  When the Democrats engage in the same bahavior, it legitimizes it.  Oh well, Hillary didn't give a damn and the party has to live with the consequences.

Your argument amounts to this:  If Obama hadn't run successfully against Hillary, she wouldn't have had to try to trash the party in order to beat him.  Hence, the divisiveness of the primary campaign and Hillary's kitchen sink strategy is his fault.  

There is not a lot of evidence that Hillary could assemble a coalition that could win in November.  There is more evidence that Obama can do so.  Is it certain?  Far from it.  But we live in times where the electorate is sharply divided.  That's just how it is.  But that is not an argument for nominating the weaker candidate.  Hilllary was going to "come back" against Obama starting with TX.  In fact, he has fought her to a draw even though that section of the primary calendar was as good as the demographics get for her:  TX, OH, PA, IN, WV, KY.  She was a weak strategist, a weak campaigner, is widely disliked, and she lost.

esmense, perhaps jacksondyer is right that we have boxed ourselves into the corner, but essentially while you might believe Obama=McGovern, Hillary therefore can be said to equal Mondale without blacks. She is fighting over the very same constituency as McCain, ie. poor whites, elderly baby boomers, Hispanics. What she might gain in a few women voters she will more than lose for in blacks and young people staying home, and if McCain would have taken Colin Powell, she very well could have lost in a landslide as millions of blacks chose to vote for McCain as protest and to see a black man on the ticket.

Beyond faults with analogies, I actually think we do have to DEFEAT, DISEMPOWER AND DRIVe OUT (of the party) those constituencies and leaders. There comes a time when the old make way for the young, grasping endlessly for power, which is essentially what a third Clinton term represents, is not the way to build for the future. The Clintons are analog politicians for a digital age (have you read how horrendously they have performed on internet fundraising, Hillary seems to think it consists of saying Hillaryclinton.com)

The Clintons had their 8 years, time for them to step aside and help a new generation of leaders. There is a reason why we have a city called Cincinnati.  

NO!  LR is homophobic???!!! And infintile???!!  I'm SHOCKED, shocked I tell you.

But he is actually handy if you need help vomiting up your lunch.  

esmense -

I actually see what you are saying, it's not without merit. I do hope you are wrong, but we won't know until we know.  The comparison to 72 seems inapprorpiate because of the state of the Republican party alone this year - broke, dispirited, 1/2 the new voters, Dems are raising money at twice the rate and that's much more the name of the game now.  The Republican party back then was on fire.  Not so now.  I think whoever is the Dem nominee is going to win by doube digits, as do most professionals in this field.  Ive always thought that was why Hillary has hung on even though she lost months ago, concocted new rules for herself, etc.  She's looking at the same polls and data everyone is.

I suspect you'd be pleased if Obama won the nomination and lost, you seem actually invested in it, so many Clinton supporters do.  I hope I am wrong.  

But most of your assertions (would love to see some data, I didn't see any, just lots of assertions) seem disproved by the lastest gallup poll. How again is Obama forcing" anyone out of anything? People are free to vote for whomever they want to. I don't get that part.  

Oh and what is a "working woman"?  I know that I am technically one, and all of the Obama supporting women I know in four states are too - but is this really a euphemism for white, blue collar, high school women?  If so - just say that.  Working women is a meaningless term.

As far as Obama somehow going out of his way to tear apart the party, I just don't see it.  Hillary alienating black people and throwing Muslim American under the bus (remember them? the "not that I know of" people? Well, they are numerous, disgusted and vote, Imagine if sh had said: there is nothing wrong with being Muslim.  Can't picture it?  Me neither).

Blackton

" I actually think we do have to DEFEAT, DISEMPOWER AND DRIVe OUT (of the party) those constituencies and leaders."

At least you are honest and understand the logic of the Obama position. Given the rationale the Obama campaign is based on, it is silly for Obama supporters to blame Hillary Clinton for any lack of unity in the party (a party the Obama campaign has intentionally set out to divide and transform), and sillier yet to ask her to be responsible for creating unity. If the Obama "movement" genuinely believes that the Clintons are the problem, and an obstacle to the change you want, how can either Bill or Hillary, or Hillary's supporters, be useful to you?

If Obama wins the general election it will not be because of "unity"  within the Democratic party. It will be because of a entirely new power dynamic created by African Americans joining with a non-partisan, class based coalition of affluent Americans (independents, moderate Republicans and affluent liberals) .

WoodyBombay: You try tangling with the roidbot. I love civil exchanges; I have had them with you and with a gentleman this weekend concerning the California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. What the 'bot didn't tell you is that he was calling basman and me names, such as "clown", "ninnies" and other fine terms and simultaneously was trying to bamboozle people into thinking that we were the ones who were juvenile. I finally had enough. He is just a nut case and I don't say that lightly. Look at how he characterizes me on this thread as an extreme Hillary supporter. You know that is not true because you have seen my posts criticizing her repeatedly. Not having a mental incapacity, I do not understand why someone would misrepresent repeatedly like that. Further, he said more than once over on the Spine that he was bored by our exchanges and was going to stop but then he just spewed out yet more venom. I never gave any details about my sex life; I am a very private person. I made one jocular reference on Saturday about disappearing from TNR Online for hours to enjoy an amorous day with my girlfriend. As basman quite correctly stated, civility prevails until the 'bot shows up on a thread. This should tell him something but he is too dense for this lesson to penetrate his tweaked neocortex.

You're private LR? Interesting - you wrote about your bisexual African American fiance last nght.  What did she think of your new name for Obama? Fellabama?  

Did you say what he said or not Liberal?  Answer the godamned question. Standard stuff: waxing on and on about  the virtues of civility,  after you'v said something hateful/homophobic or giving internet blowjobs to anyone saying anything against Obama (Oh Tep, that is just Einsteinian, your brilliant take, please let me lick your shoes).  

Again:  did you say that about Obama or not?  Is this something civil?  Is your hypocrisy something that makes you vomit, or only me?

If you took remote responsibility for yourself in any way, it might help your phony cause of "civility."  But you do not, so your whining is a constant joke. You are a bigot.

I am not reading one syllable by you anymore Liberal, you are the most rancid addition to this site in the last year - a waste of my eyeball juice.  I am skipping every one of your hypocritical, dishonest, often bigoted bullshit so please save your finger energy if you plan in replying to me.  After Obamafella, I do not believe a word you say anyway.  Maybe send the amazingly tolerant tigress to respond next time, I'd love to meet her.

Jeez, LR, I am feeling SO VERY betrayed by a fellow Washingtonian.

I'm glad I don't venture over to "The Spine."  Ick, yikes, sheesh, sheee-it and zoinks!!

esmense,

I find your thoughts and ideas to be mostly interesting, but I am going to have to call "koolaid" on you, here:

"Given the rationale the Obama campaign is based on, it is silly for Obama supporters to blame Hillary Clinton for any lack of unity in the party (a party the Obama campaign has intentionally set out to divide and transform), "

Umm, have you forgotten who has declared their opponent to be "unfit" for the position of Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America in a time of war? Refer back to Clinton's speeches in the two weeks before the PA debate, in case you have forgotten; there is a reason Obama scored points on Hillary after her explicit "admission" that Obama could, indeed, beat McCain in the general election, and it was not because she had been promoting party unity at her stump speeches the previous week. On the other hand, Obama has never once claimed that Hillary was less than qualified to be POTUS, or that she would be a lesser option to McCain. From day one, Obama has always tried to show how he makes a better candidate: the qualification of good judgement over experience, and highlighting differences in their positions on issues which he feels makes him the better candidate. Even his most viscous attack ads, in the days leading up to the PA primary, were focused on the issues themselves, even to the exclusion of taking some wide-open cheap shots for political points. After months of her telling America's democrats that her opponent is a lesser qualified candidate than McCain, I can only respond to allegations that Obama is the "party wrecker" by calling "koolaid" on you.

"If you believe in his change message -- and believe he is correct in asserting that blame for our current problems must be laid at the door of the former Clinton administration..."

I'm smelling some more koolaid here; if you're going to spout off about what Obama intends to "change" you should probably read what he has to say on the matter: www.barackobama.com/.../ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

As for winning a primary on a "constituency" that won't hold up in the general election, it seems to me that last time, by your own admission, people just stayed home and didn't vote because the nominee was not the candidate they wanted originally. I'm not familiar with McGovern campaign in the least, but if the Democrats couldn't be bothered to vote for the Democratic Nominee then there is no room for said Democrats to claim Obama is unelectable without tacitly admitting that Obama is unelectable because they'll sabotage the general election.

Obama's "constituency" always has been and always will be the citizens of the United States of America. Like every other candidate in history, he has customized his message based on which particular constituency he is addressing at any given point, but he has always spoken of inclusivity. If people decide to stay home instead of voting in the general election, it has nothing to do with Obama's message, no matter what anyone says.

It's very different over on the spine. More mean-spirited. I do not know why.

oh yeah, I was going to comment on this post. Or rather the quote within it:

[Clinton's] advisers say that a major reason she does not want to be pressured out of the race is that she believes it will be easier to bring her supporters over to Obama once the primaries are over if they think she was able to finish the nomination battle on her own terms.

****

This quote equates being pressured out of the race with quitting. If she quit - if she truly wanted to quit and just quit, the way others have done when it really looks like they're not going to win and they feel like jackasses asking for money - then she WOULD be leaving the race on her own terms. If she doesn't quit, as I guess Chris is pointing out, then getting pressured is more likely, although so is just plain losing, when Obama gets his delegate count after the supers go for him.

Also, I'm not sure about this other shoe dropping. I think it's a hoax to scare the cattle into stampeding. And I don't think it's working.