Had Richardso endorsed Hillary Noam would have written a piece called "Why Richardson doesn't matter." You can count on it.

Richardson's endorsement signals a turning point. The Democratic nomination is effectively over, even if Hillary Clinton will wait until June to admit defeat. The Superdelegates will follow Richardson's lead. Obama's historic speech on race was inspiring, and honest. While it did not erase all the damage done by Wright it demonstrated Obama's ability to deal with the most difficult of issues in a fair and high-minded manner. Clearly, given the 24/7 feeding frenzy of attacks he has endured, the speech helped immeasurably by illumininating Obama's character and intellect.  The time has come for Democrats to rally around their nominee and prepare for a tough general election campaign against an honorable but wrong-headed opponent.

The binary thinking  of this whole damn thing is getting so tedious - if someone at TNR says something deemed 'positive" about Obama, Hillary supporters immediately leap in with the lameness, yadda yadda of Obama and how bias and unfair it all is.  

The reverse is true as well. Talkback has begun to have the intellectual depth of a kindergarden class, with about as much self-reflection.  Bias at this level is lazy and boring.  

Wanderey: Reminds me of Kissinger's observation about academic infighting.  When the policy difference between the two candidates is so small, it is natural that the personality differences become that much more amplified, and that the antagonisms become more entrenched.  It is sad, really sad, to see in these pages things like, "If Obama/Hillary is in, I will vote for McCain."  Nose/spite/face and all that.

Agreed, Wandreycer1---which is why I agree with Scheiber.  Time to end this thing.

Wandreycer1

My thoughts exactly. This is getting silly.

Right on point icarusr!  I was just thinking the exact same thing!  Because there is so little policy difference between these two the only thing left to distinguish between themselves are their personality differences.  It can only get uglier from here to June and God forbid further on.

"...which is why I agree with Scheiber.  Time to end this thing."

Yes, timteeter, let's end it. Tell Obama to withdraw.

Wandreycer1 you are not above the fry. You too are part of the "binary thinking" here.

Oh I agree Jackson - part of what I'm tired of is my own participation in this at whatever level.  I think recently I have had a real shift (or tried to and probably failed at times, to cool it).  Hey, I have a preference and so do you.  

I think everything has been said from each side and then some.  I'm gingerly trying to move in to other territory, like how in the world we are going to heal this rift, for the supporters of whoever wins to not dare gloat.  Gloating makes me extremely uncomfortable, it's actually closer to a sin than a mistake.

I agree timteeter and icarus, I agree - ready to just wrap this up - is it possible?

I was thinking of trying to start some sort of group within my community: Coming Together as Democrats After a Brutal Civil War - Channy, you're the ad man, you think of a better name for me, OK?

And then maybe trying to find a way to expand it to fit other types of communities (after all my community is social workers and social work academics - emotional processing is a  large chunk of what we do for a living - which doesn't mean we're any better at it, half of us are lunatics - we just know some frameworls and tricks of the trade).

I have tried to take the high road with friends who are taking their frustration out on me, Hillary supporters. I don't want to fan the flames and I have to stop myself from flaring up with anger at the inference that I have something to be apologetic about to them.  But I do not.  I'm meeting one friend for a Come to Jesus meeting tonight over drinks.  I;ve had it with her not returning my calls and emails except to say rotten things.  

If Hillary can possibly pull this off without demolishing the party in the process, I'd be the first to support her at this point.  Maybe I'm biased, but it just doesn't seem like it.  I would proably be lashing out if I were in her and her supporters shoes too.  But I even remember Hillary saying awhile ago when she was quite down, someone has to win and someone has to lose.  I'm not biased by stating this fact.  

Scheiber's piece should be put into context and reconciled with the following bold statement by Richardson. Dunno. Is Bill Richardson a hypocrite who is going to go against the will of the people of his state, which Hillary won? Would the real Bill Richardson stand up please?

From the NYT via ABC'a Jake Tapper:

Mr. Richardson, in an interview, would not say whom he would vote for, but he clearly sided with Mr. Obama in the philosophical debate over how superdelegates should decide how to vote.

“It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency,” he said. “It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.”

But if Mr. Richardson sides with Mr. Obama on what should drive the decision of the superdelegates, that position would seem to leave him more likely to become a Clinton superdelegate: Mrs. Clinton won New Mexico by a slight margin.

Mr. Richardson said he had not decided whom to support, or even when he would make a decision. “I haven’t made up my mind,” he said.

We report,you decide...

Ah, Dr. Shungu. good to see you back. PC has gotten so lonely that even jacksondyer has wandered over from the spine to keep her company.

I'm not sure hypocrisy is the right word here. But I agree it's an inconsistency. Which actually makes it an additional barrier he would have had to think himself over to support Obama. Given that you've established an even higher threshold for him endorsing Obama than had previously been noted, it makes his endorsement all the more meaningful, no?

"Mrs. Clinton won New Mexico by a slight margin"

A margin of 1,709 votes, to be precise... out of some 150,000 votes cast.

miceelf  said:

"I'm not sure hypocrisy is the right word here. But I agree it's an inconsistency."

and then poses this non sequitur:

"Given that you've established an even higher threshold for him endorsing Obama than had previously been noted, it makes his endorsement all the more meaningful, no?"

An endorsement that shows the man to be ...er... inconsistent (read: a hypocrite) is to be values that much more? I do not see the logic.

jobeek2  said:

"A margin of 1,709 votes, to be precise... out of some 150,000 votes cast."

What difference does it make? It was a Hillary win, and Richardson, did he give a damn about respecting the will of the people of NM, should have backed Hillary. That he did not, and is apparently not being crucified for it (at least not yet), is powerful statement in support of the notion that superdelegates should follow their conscience and back the candidate they feel has the best chance of bringing home the bacon...He seems to feel that Obama is that candidate, which is fine. But with Obama getting in hot water and looking quite vulnerable by the day against McCain, there is no reason for Hillary to drop out of the race, which is now as tied as this thing can get...

I agree that the superdelegates have every right to follow their consciences. I just find the notion that many will do so to be utterly laughable. Most will do what they feel is best to advance their own Careers and sense of self worth.

And the Clintonites hope that somehow 75% of the remaining sd's will vote for Hillary is also pretty funny. Yes, they can, but it is highly doubtful.

jacksondyer writes:  "Wandreycer1 you are not above the fry."

Indeed a basic truth.  One is never unconnected to the crackling bacon, the bubbling egg, the spitting sausage, the browning onion, the softening tomato, or the thickening pancake.  One is always in the sizzling fat of debate even when one imagines oneself in charge of the spatula.

ironyroad, you are full of irony today, roadster.

Enjoy the sizzling.

ironyroad - perfect!

actually, more people in New Mexico voted against Clinton than for her. If you add those who voted for Richardson to those who voted for Obama, you come out ahead of Clinton. Perhaps many of those who voted for Richardson expressed to him their preference for Obama?

In any case, it's a very small margin of victory for Clinton. If you can't see the difference between that and someone like John Lewis, who was going against 75% of his constituents (rather than going against 49% of them), then I am not sure how we can communicate further.

Some of you have said this, but I think it bear repeating.  The longer this goes on, the less likely it is that Democrats will be able to rally around their eventual nominee and win in November.  

The uncommitted superdelegates stand around like fools, crying about how damaging this long race is to the party, but none of them have the balls to just commit and help end it.  NYT recently had a count of 140 uncommitted SD's from states won by Obama to about 100 uncommitted SD's from states won by Clinton.  Put these down on paper and there's nothing left to fight for.  The math is obvious even to Clinton supporters (who currently delude themselves into thinking that the SD's will hand this thing to their candidate).

Richardson took an incredibly courageous step.  Hopefully many of the other uncommitted super delegates will follow suit.

(In future, it would be nice to see the superdelegates commit within a day or two of their states vote.  This would have averted this whole calamity.)

arimelmed-

Apres Richardson le deluge. At least one can hope.

I'm not with the "pale and cloistered virtue" crowd. Obama is a political newbie and like all newbies only benefits from sustained, serious critical attention. Ditto for Democrats generally. Intelligent and good-faith criticism is not only a good but an aboslutely necessary thing for a party like ours that, again and again and again, deludes itself about its actual political standing (Pelosi and Reid's vows to end funding and halt the war, anyone?).

I voted for Obama in the primary and will almost certainly vote for him in the general. I criticize his handling of l'affaire Wright, and TNR's increasingly snark-filled treatment of Obama's detractors and rivals, because I think he has made an extremely dumb error that will undermine the main source of his appeal to non-blacks and therefore make what should be an easy Dem victory in Nov into a very close one that McCain may well pull out.

Then again, if you guys would prefer to make this into what Marty calls a "church bulletin", go for it. Probably a better marketing strategy if Obama reaches the White House. But an uncritical, and increasingly fawning, approach won't help him get there, in fact will seriously undermine his chances.

"But an uncritical, and increasingly fawning, approach won't help him get there, in fact will seriously undermine [Obama's] chances."

It is the approach that got him where he is today, and it is the one by which he'll die in November...

Hillary, who has the best shot in November against McCain, is not likely to get the nomination without a big brawl breaking out, and Obama, who looks like he might get the nomination, got to this point with no scrutiny whatsoever, only for his fawning supporters in the press and the populace to find out at the eleventh hour that he is actually a Manchurian Candidate, groomed by Reverend Wright to get elected, to further his agenda of hate, by presenting a face of tolerance and reconciliation! Wright being Obama's Spiritual Guru, who do you think would have been setting the moral tome for this country once Obama got elected?... You guessed it. Wright would have been pushing the sermon of venom WRIGHT out of the White House...

Wright got exposed, so Obama who won't "disown" him,  is now the Manchurian Candidate, who is not likely to beat McCain in November; so, therefore, the Dems have shot themselves in the foot, yet again, by their persistent Quixotic search for a "pure" candidate, and infatuation with anyone that comes along and fools them into thinking that he's The One...

Deshungu... have you actually seen anything other than the sound bites that keep playing on Foc News et al of what Wright actually said in context?  YouTube has a TUCC positings of a far longer and more contextual portion of the more troublesome sermons which, as is invariably the case, when one gets more than a sound bite taken out of context, far less inflamatory and understandable.

Did you know that Wright was a USMarine for 3 years and a navy medic for another 3?  And his church welcomes White as well as Black worshippers and has done remarkable work in the Black community with all sorts of sorely needed programs.

Most of all go and reread Jeremiah if what Wright has to say troubles you so.  Do I agree with all of it?  Hardly.  But it is far more thoughtful and indeed even "mainstream" than the sound bites,

As for this continuing nomination battle... could it just be that there is method to Clinton's seemingly tenacious madness?  Weaken Obama so McCain wins and she can stange another run in 2012, saying "I told you so."

Finally go listen to the cheers over Richardson's endorsement... and also the way it was delivered and its content.  The Democrats may have shot themselves in the foot as you say, but the fture of the party is not with the Clintons and in this case winning may not be all.  The ground is being prepared for real change, necessary change with Obama's candidacy.  After all even Reagan, that "transformative" President for the Republican/conservative cause, didn't win in 1976.  But boy oh boy, it was some groundwork that was laid... if the country can withstand another 4 years that is to say... but at least McCain is an honorable man... which may be more than can be said for the Clintons.  In all events, they are past delivering real change it would be a very mixed and problematic Restoration indeed and one with utterly no "legs" at all as far as the future is concerned... and Bill just can't keep his mouthg shut can he?... now questioning Obama's patriotism, which McCain had the good grace to defend.  And you want the Democrats to come together around that!!!  Not this 70 year White woman nor her 76 year old husband... some of us just don't buy **&%%.

I dunno, somehow I just think none of this matters. If Hillary and Obama were to have a duel like Aaron Burr and Alex Hamilton and both lived and went to the convention and were rolling around on the floor pulling out each others hair, and meanwhile protests a la 1968 were going on outside the Dem candidate would STILL win. Even in '68 Nixon only barely squeaked by. It ain't gonna happen again llike that for the Repugs, not with McCain's increasing personna of a combo of Prez Ford falling down the stairs and Reagan in the years he was kept from public view. If that doesn't do it for the Dems there's the perception to be further ingrained that McCain would be a Bush third term.

annabella2 writes, "...Did you know that Wright was a USMarine for 3 years and a navy medic for another 3?"

Uh, annabella, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, as well.  

Service in the corps is and ought to be highly admired.  But, it doesn't buy you a lifetime pass from condemnation for later bad acts.

Hillary Clinton is far from my choice for president.  Or, even for Senator.

But, as Obama has yet to secure enough votes for the nomination, why should she give up?

Even if she herself would like to throw in the towell (which I doubt) she owes it to her millions of supporters and the people who have given her millions of dollars to persevere.

arimelmed, you write, "...The uncommitted superdelegates stand around like fools, crying about how damaging this long race is to the party, but none of them have the balls to just commit and help end it."

arimelmed, after the Wright Affair, it may well be that these delegates are afraid that there is yet another shoe to drop on Obama.  

They are right to be cautious and let the process play itself out.  There are other primaries, including PA to run.  

What if Clinton defeats Obama in PA by a landslide?  Even though she won't pick up sufficient votes there to close the deal, a big win by Clinton in yet another major state will give the delegates pause.

Obama has won mainly small, rural states in this primary.  States he almost certainly won't take in the national.  Including the Southern states which will probably go solid Red for McCain.

Hillary, on the other hand, has won a string of major states, including all the biggest ones-- California, NY, TX, NJ, MA, etc.  States, that with the exception of TX, she'll keep in the national.

If the Democrats had any brains, they would find a way to re-vote in MI and FL where they could have a chance to get a decision made by the voters.

As is more likely, this will be decided in early September after a contentious Denver convention.  And, if something else bad comes out against Obama, the Super Delegates may be forced to go against the primary voters.

Won't that be fun.

No, it will be decided in June at the latest.

The notion that Hillary is the stronger candidate because she wins in states that the Dems are sure to win against McCain is perverse in the extreme.  The US News (hardly a fan of Hillary or Obama) analysis of the Electoral College vote as between Hillary and Obama shows consistently, with each set of polls they rely on, that Obama is the stronger candidate nationally.  Of course, you can find SOME states where she is stronger or can win where he can't.  This is the absurd cherry-picking that constantly goes on here to support ridiculous claims about Hillary.  While cherry-picking particular contests or states as somehow representative of the whole, the Hillaristas willfuly ignore the accounting for the whole.  No, we are supposed to take polls about PA as indicative of the nation, not polls of the the nation as indicative of the nation.  What a lot of sheer lunacy.  Perhaps it is because Hillary herself is as bad at arithmetic as her supporters that she is doing so badly.

But then Hillaristas are not interested in electoral math at either the primary level or the general level.  They are interested in whatever spin the can create at a given moment to prove that Hillary will win (no, that is over, even they don' bother), might win (only a few diehards on that one, such as pccostello), or should win for the good of the Democratic party (the current redoubt of Hillaristas).  The idea that the Democrats would be better off by nominating the loser who blew an enormous lead in organization, time, name recognition, experience (kidding there) is risible.

Peggy Noonan really did a number on Hillary this morning on "Meet the Pundits". Keep going, Peggy!

"Peggy Noonan really did a number on Hillary this morning on "Meet the Pundits". Keep going, Peggy!"

Someone doing a number on Hillary on MTP is news???

Chanrobt comments on Obama's ability to win Red states (30 out of 44, so far).  Actually I think it's worth turning this on it's head and noting that Clinton hasn't been able to win anywhere other than solid blue states  (OK, she split Texas...).  Are we worried that we'll lose NY and CA in November? For crying out loud! Kucinich could win those states against McCain!

The issue, as I see it is this: Clinton doesn't see beyond what's good for her.  Had she had any vision, she would have gracefully stepped out before Ohio and Texas, knowing that even if she wins there she can only claw her way to a sad victory with the Dems in tatters.  A more thoughtful candidate would have realized that one can only catch up by attacking, and that with sustained attacks comes real damage.  Damage to the very base she'll need to win in November.

But she fought on, and chipped away at the lead, leaving us with the prospect of a long and bitter fight.  She can't quit now.  Her supporters would be furious.  She has to fight on through PA.  No surprises expected there.  She'll likely gain (net) about 30 odd delegates in PA.  Obama then regains  net 15 in NC, and so it goes.  We end up in Denver with all eyes on the SD's and tempers short after a long and bitter battle.

At that point the damage will be done.  The SD's have no good way out.  Clintonites will point to her resilliance.  Obama supporters, to his lead.  This, after months of bitter internecine feuding.

My strong feeling is that the SD's can't expect the candidates or the remaining voters to sort it out.  As elected officials (for the most part the uncommitted SD's left  tend to be elected officials), they'll have to do something quite unfamiliar to most of them: Show leadership and courage... (!)

They need to step in before PA, and help save their party by taking their vote out of play.  The math is clear to everyone except diehard Clinton supporters, who still fantasize about SD's coming over en mass to her (snort! and then lmao! going on to... give me a moment here hooo hoo haa ha ha win the general hoo ha ha ha election!!!).

wanna check it for yourself?  www.slate.com/.../delegatecounter

arimelmed  said

"The issue, as I see it is this: Clinton doesn't see beyond what's good for her.  Had she had any vision, she would have gracefully stepped out before Ohio and Texas, knowing that even if she wins there she can only claw her way to a sad victory with the Dems in tatters."

It is time for people to stop this line fallacious reasoning. It ludicrous, if not outright stupid. Hillary did not make up the rules of engagement. The party did. The number of pledged delegates required to win the nomination was established by the party. At this point neither she nor Obama would reach it. And out of more than 2k pledged delegates required to win, the two are separated by just over a hundred. With Obama looking weaker after being scrutinized for the first time ever during the contest, Hillary's chances at winning the lion's share of the remaining states/delegates look every good. In the end, neither would reach the required number of pledged delegates, so that the superdelegates would have to settle the nomination. However, it would be foolish to assume that the superdelegates would just automatically  anoint Obama because he has a narrow lead in pledged delegates. If that were the case, they would already have ended this thing by putting Obama over the top, since Hillary cannot mathematically overtake Obama's lead. But things are not that simple, for a number of reasons, but chief among them is that in the end, the superdelegates' only basis for supporting either Obama or Clinton will be, 'who can bring the bacon home against McCain?', and at this point no one knows! That the superdelegates have chosen to the take a "wait and see" attitude, and are willing to let this thing play itself out to the end plainly reflects their uncertainty about Obama's ability to win in November. That is why the pattern of his wins so far becomes important. He's won the deep red states and a few purple states that he has no chance of winning in November! You wanted for Hillary to bow out before the Ohio and Texas contests, but that would have been foolish on her part! Obama had to prove to the superdelgates that he can deliver the knock out punch and yet again he failed to do so, which gave the superdelegates -- who seemed ready at that point to jump in for Obama -- a pause. But after Obama's 20-year old relationship with the hate-filled Reverend Dr. Wright surfaced and raised  serious and legitimate questions about Barack Obama's judgment and what he really believes in, you can bet that many superdelegates are now more than ever determined to "wait and see" before they endorse. Obama looks increasingly vulnerable, and should Hillary finish this contest with the momentum by trouncing Obama in PA, WV, and carrying a state or two (IN, NC) that Obama is expected to carry, all bets would be off. This thing would go all the way to Denver, as it should UNDER the party's own rules. As Richardson's endorsement of Obama just showed, the superdelegates are not bound to support a candidate just because he or she won a given state. If that were the case, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would have to support Hillary, since she won MA by 13 points (driving a stake into the heart of the argument of those who said that Hillary really did not win NM). So what should we expect going forward? Most superdelegates are going to "wait and see", and let this things play itself out, which means that:

1. Obama has better to hope that the Wright issue would not have damaged him too badly, and that it would go away.

2. No other damaging issues would surface to cast more doubt on Obama's ability to win against McCain.

3. Obama would finish strong and have the 'big mo' when it is all said and done.

4. There remains the question of what to do with the FL and MI delegates. Failure to resolve this issue satisfactorily could anger the voters in both states, which would almost certainly cost the Dems the election. Thus, this is also still pretty much a wild card.

What won't happen going forward is Hillary dropping out. She won't because (a) this thing is too close for her to give up and (b) she owes it to those who have supported her this far to continue fighting. She did not make the rules of engagement, and if this election has taught us anything at all, it is that she is a fighter. Get used to that idea and stop pushing the foolishness that Hillary should drop out for the "good of the party." The party made up the ridiculous rules of engagement, which she is just playing by!!! She got into this race to win, and with the contest remaining very very close, Obama looking increasingly vulnerable, and most of the rank and file Dems supporting her, you think that Hillary should do the unthinkable and drop out now? This is no longer only about what is good for Hillary. It is about who would be the best Dem nominee for the party, and at this point, no one knows. The superdelegates, by not ending this thing now when they can, seem to want Hillary to continue, and she won't quit, so get used to it.

I didn't say that I EXPECTED Clinton to bow out before the thing got redicuously ugly.  I just said that if she had the ability to think beyond what's good for her, then she might seriously have considered it.  At this point she's in the fight to the death and it's up to the SD's to decide how much blood they'd like to see spilled before they step in to end the match.

As for Rev Wright, I doubt that's what's holding up the SD's.  They're simply cowering elected officials who are scared of pissing off voters and scared of the Clintons and maybe scared of Obama too.  Obama is clean as a wistle compared to Clinton.  Just wait till Peter Paul et al start hitting the news again.  Wait till the real story of her support for NAFTA, they lying about it to win Ohio gets more press.

Also, you can't have it both ways.  You justify Clinton's staying in the race because that's what's the rules say.  Well then kiss MI and Fl goodby, because that's what the rules say.

Finally, if we Obama folks should abandon the fantasy of Clinton quitting, then you Clinton folks should abandon the fantasy of the super delegates handing her the nomination and expecting her to win the general election.

But just take a step back and look at the tone we're taking with one another.  The fight has gone on too long.  The more Clinton attacks Obama, the more her people start to HATE Obama.  When he starts firing back in earnest we'll see more of that vitriol from his supporters (certainly if he ends up with the plurality of delegates and doens't win the nomination we'll see some pissed off Obama supporters).  

My feeling is that the SD's will have to annoint the winner one way or another.  If they really want us to fight till August, exhaust fundraising on the nomination and tarnish the candidates  then try to somehow unite in 2 months, then they should certainly continue to cower.   If they would like this fight to come to an end, they should just pick a candidate and let us get on with it.

But...I really won't vote for Clinton! And it's not childish---my vote is purely symbolic in a blood-red state, so I do not have to hold my nose when I vote. It doesn't matter who I vote for, because if McCain has even the possibility of losing this state, he will lose the election in a landslide. So if I am voting, I'd rather have a personal inclination to do so.

I voted Green in 2004 and probably would have in 2000, although I was looking for Kerry and Gore to win, respectively. If Clinton were the nominee, I would hope she won against McCain, and then vote for the Green Party again. I will continue to vote for the Greens until either the Democrats nominate someone I actually like (Gore, to his credit, has won my respect since 2000), or I move to a state where my vote actually matters.

By the way, if this thing is finally wrapped up and Hillary is out, we can still keep this thing going for shits and giggles when pccostello comes trolling around, insisting that she actually won the nomination, and we've just been conned by that voodoo African charlatan.

arimelmed writes, "...The issue, as I see it is this: Clinton doesn't see beyond what's good for her.  Had she had any vision, she would have gracefully stepped out before Ohio and Texas, knowing that even if she wins there she can only claw her way to a sad victory with the Dems in tatters"

Then what's the point of these primaries, arimel?  This is a little like saying, "Had he any vision, Churchill would gracefully have made a deal with Hitler lest Britain be left in tatters by the Lufwaffe."

Which is pretty much what Lord Beaverbrook and others did recommend before Sept 1939.