Lordy, all that circular reasoning must make you dizzy.

Obama is likely to be the nominee so Hillary should drop out because in case Obama does something like slander gun owners and god believers while simultaneously exposing himself as a liar and a fraud on the subject of gun rights and free trade the Dems can all stick behind the nominee rather than reconsider whether or not he should be the nominee because HE'S OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

Stay classy, Hillary!

An easier way for this not to harm the Democratic Party: If he had not said it. Oh poor Obama. He said something condescending and arrogant and you're writing an item decrying his opponent for attacking him on it. Hilarious.

If the polls don't budge, this can be ignored.  If they start to move, long past time for the Obama campaign to unload on Clinton -- for which there is a vast trove of material -- and satisfy the Hillaristas that he can in fact bury her.  There's a time for the high road, and there is a time to get down in the gutter with the snipe and kill it.

At least her campaign has figured out they want to attack Obama rather than Hillary. But HERE's how you respond to this kind of crap:

www.youtube.com/watch

You don't deny you said it for 11 days, then claim you were tired or the sun was in your eyes. You say "I said it. And here's why"

Of course, that's easier to do when you're explaining why you described the frustrations of some Americans than it is when you're explaining why you confabulated a scene from Clear and Present Danger.

You are so biased it's sickening.  It's OK that he's ruined HER for the general election by calling her for the past 6 months dishonest and lacking credibility and a flip flopper and a racist and corrupt.  And he's taken her misstatements and ran with them, using them for political gain.  So, it's OK for him to defame her, exploiting a long-cultivated, RNC-spun view of the Clintons as vile and evil.  But anything she says about him --  using comments he himself has said were ill-worded, and Axelrod says they regret, but can't really explain -- is ruining the party.  You are a journalist.  You're supposed to be able to see beyond your own wants and wishes and self-interest.  You're supposed to be able to weigh both sides, and see that both are using whatever they can to gain advantage.  It's not just one side.  It's not just one candidate.  There are two sides.  Two candidates.   Your position on Obama makes me discount what you've written on other topics.  Because if you're so myopic in this area, there's no reason you'd be any less so in others.

I accidentally posted this on "Obama's none-too-bright comments," butI meant to post them here:

What's getting lost in the hubbub (sp?) are the positive comments about Obama that Mayhill Fowler made in the post in which she "broke" his recent statement. Specifically, she says she's never seen him speak to people at public events across Pennsylvania with anything other than openness and high individual regard for them. It's obvious that he simply misspoke at the fundraiser, in the way he phrased the comment. It would be ludicrous, given everything else he's ever said, to think that he sees religion as a mere symptom of economic malaise. It was just a bad choice of words -- a mistake more eligible for the "I misspoke" disclaimer than are repeated outright fabrications of sniperfire, for heaven's sake! And Clinton is now unscrupulously exploiting this as much as she can. I have tried to be fair to her throughout this campaign, in part because I have been disturbed by the intensity of the animosity toward her by bloggers and commentators and by the sexist frame this animosity has too often expressed. But her exploitation of this gaffe is outrageous. Did Obama's campaign jump on or exploit the Tuzla lies?

In response to Senator Obama's concern about the thousands of jobs in our industrial heartland that have been lost because of the unrestrained free-trade bias of the Clinton and Bush administrations, the Clinton campaign had this to say: "We believe that the future of our country is bright and reflected every day in the stars and stripes of our country's flag."

It is appalling that the Clinton campaign treats the serious issues of job loss and job creation as if they were a question of waving the flag.  This is the sort of political cynicism that has been leaving working people to struggle against competition from countries where wages are as little as 10 cents an hour.  If anyone complains, or so much as expresses concern for the hardships of working families, the Clinton campaign talks about the stars and stripes in the flag.  Indeed, while the Clinton campaign claims to oppose the Columbia free-trade deal, its chief strategist, Mark Penn, was actually representing the government of Columbia to promote that very same deal.  

The voters of Pennsylvania or Indiana or North Carolina are not going to be fooled by this sort of double-talk and double-dealing that waves the flag with one hand while taking bread off the table of American working families with the other.  Maybe Senator Clinton has been in Washington and New York too long to remember what life is like in the heartland of America.  Senator Clinton, are you going to stand with Americans or continue working on behalf of foreign governments at the expense of Americans?  The voters want to know.    

hayleykelse,

Obama has done none of the things that you accuse him of.  It is the punditocracy, the press, and the blogosphere that has undone Clinton by calling her on her crap.  WE are entitled to our opinions and entitled to express them.  None of that gives Hillary Clinton any license whatsoever to undermine the party's chances in November to satisfy her narcissistic need to remain in the spotlight as long as possible.

Now, to give you an idea of how delusional the die-hard Hillaristas are, I estimated the PA, NC and IN turnout by looking at the number of delegates relative to turnout in NY, IL, CA and OH.  If you pay particular attention to OH, you get a range  for the three remaining big races, PA, NC, and IN, of 4.2 million to 5.2 million voters.  If you apply the current average poll percentages for those three states to the delegates up for grabs, you get Hillary gaining a net 12 delegates in PA, losing a net 18 in NC, and gaining a net 6 in IN.  That is a net ZERO.  After the results on May 6, Obama's pledged delegate advantage of 164 is barely going to budge if indeed it moves at all.  If Hillary could gain a net 10 delegates, it would be a miracle.  On the popular vote side, where Obama has a 532,000 margin, including FL but excluding MI where only Hillary was on the ballot, the best forecast, again based on the current polls, would be for Obama to pick up an additional net popular vote of 0 to 20,000.

By any stretch, these are big turnout forecasts, up to double the national average per delegate, so I rather doubt that I am under-estimating.  But even if you take OH as the yardstick, you only get up to a turnout of 5.4 million which would be enormous compared to the 14 million or so who have already voted.  It's actually sort of irrelevant because PA and IN together are double the size of NC and Obama's margin in NC is double Hillary's in PA and IN.  It is close to a wash any way you look at it and cannot end up dramatically different from a wash in either direction unless the voters in PA and IN go to the polls and the voters in NC don't.  Any reason why that should be the case?  Do you think Obama can count?  Do you think he is perhaps working overtime on turnout in NC so that Hillary has no story to tell on May 7?  I think so.

By May 6, 3034 pledged delegates will have been chosen.  Obama will have on May 6, a delegate margin that is probably unchanged but can't drop below 150 even in an extreme case.  His margin in popular votes will likely still be above 500,000, and growing, but cannot drop below 400,000 even in an extreme case.  Only 217 delegates and something like 1 million to 2 million votes will still be open.  Give Hillary an extremely unlikely 55:45 split (a 10% spread compared to the 2% spread to date).  Obama still goes to the convention with a delegate margin of 130 to 140 and a popular vote margin of 250,000 at the very least.

The only thing that could possibly convince the super-delegates to over-turn the decision of the Democratic rank and file and choose Hillary would be the complete collapse of Obama v Hillary in the poll match-ups with McCain.  There is not a shred of evidence that that is happening or going to happen.  Just the reverse. Obama has been gaining ground on Hillary since the low-point of the Wright controversy when she almost, but didn't quite, catch up with him.

Just in case no one is counting, for Hillary to make up a 140 delegate margin out of the 315 super-delegates who have not yet declared, the remaining supers would have to 1) defy the pledged delegate count, 2) defy the popular vote, and 3) defy the national polls of match-ups against McCain and then cast their votes by a margin of more than 2 to 1 for Hillary.  If, on May 7, Obama's pledged delegate margin is still above 160, as seems likely, the remaining undeclared supers would have to go for Hillary by a margin of 3:1 to cover that margin.

That's why this is already over, and why it will be clear to all that it is over come May 7.

The fact that Hillary wants to do the Republicans work for them ought to make her as unwelcome as Joe Lieberman, the other crypto-Republican in the Democratic hierarchy.  Right now, the Republican ticket might as well be McCain-Clinton.

Kidding aside, this IS good for Obama -- if he needs to learn that you don't say anything in a campaign that even HINTS at disrespect of the voters, learn it now, not in the general campaign.  No matter how corect Obama may have been, you don't let the word "Religion" pass from your lips without thinking very hard about how your words will be taken.  

Lymon1: Amen.  Any way, better this sort of thing gets dealt with now than in October.  

Roi: in the middle of a particularly nasty litigation, I asked one of my colleagues to put some poison in our oral submission to the judges.  We had had endless delays, motions and accusation; we had had no sleep for months; we were tired and, what is more, we would have morally justified in hitting back with all we had.  Well, in the end we took the high road.  In court, when we were hit with another baseless accusation, the presiding judge turned beet red, and then turned to me and gave me the rest of the afternoon to sweetly but decisively destroy the other side.  React, yes; respond, by all means; manage the message, certainly.  But ...

I began in this campaign as a firm supporter of Mrs. Clinton (without any stake in the elections by the way).  I had no interest in Mr. Obama; had not been impressed by the 2004 speech; am not generally impressed by oratory to begin with ... and week after week, Tuzla after South Carolina, I have been moved away from Mrs. Clinton and impressed by Mr. Obama.  Remember Elliot Ness in "The Untouchables"?  "I have become what I beheld."  We do not need three Clintons campaigning ...  

Kinda smug, those comments are. Arrogant, you might say.

"Stay classy, Hillary"

You're kidding I hope!

This person, Hillary Clinton, is near to causing a serious and long-term to the Democratic party and its prospects. If she was going to keep running, the only way she could win is by being a leader, which is somewhat different than a "fighter," and showing us her best stuff. Instead we get a daily load of spin and garbage tossed at her fellow Dem. Today she sends out press releases quoting Republican vile strategist Ed Rollins and anti-humane Grover Norquest.

I am beginning to think selfishly, which is not really my politics. As a long-time Dem, I've resisted the urge to say that if she is the candidate I will not vote for her. But then I realize that any Dem, including Hillary, is better than any Rep. But, my doubts increase daily. I just can't imagine listening to this person for four years--not because she is a woman, but because she has no soul.

Senator Obama.  Here's a few tips on how to court the working class and stave off the elitist label the Repubs are likely to give you should you make it to the general:

1. Don't typify them by "perceived" cultural traits.  This equals stereotyping.

2. In fact, avoid the word "typical" at all costs (you keep slipping up with this one- e.g., your grandmom in your race speech).

3. Keep doing the town meetings, visiting the diners, places of employment. Avoid the celebrity-like rallies and venues/events where you appear to lecture.

4. When there (point 3) share the power/control over the conversation.  Practice your listening skills.

5. Eat the cheesesteaks and the other goodies normal folk offer you on the campaign trail.  Never turn down generosity, even if you may gain a few pounds (you can afford it anyway).

One more thing, if Hillary continues to press you on this, rest assured that it will only embolden opposition to her rather than causing you any serious damage, for the hatred directed toward her is nothing I suspect any other canddiate in US history has had to endure.    

Ah well, icarusr, you're probably right.  But sooner or later Obama is going to need some surrogates who know how to counterpunch.

Sounds like Noam has a case of the sour grapes. The election is 7 months away, and Obama is not the nominee. He is not entitled to be handed the nomination. Clinton should pulverize him now that his actual attitudes are coming clear. Obama's social analysis has all the depth of a college student's senior thesis.

Scheiber sez: "In light of the Clinton campaign's response to Obama's ill-advised comments on small-town inhabitants, it's become obvious that Jon Chait and I were way off base arguing that the extended primary is killing the party. Why, as Elizabeth Edwards recently put it, the never-ending contest is clearly good for the party's White House chances."

I held my breath hoping that finally this was the moment of reckoning for the TNR staff when they would issue a mea culpa for calling on Hillary to quit the race, despite the fact that Obama had not yet won the nomination and that, in politics, every single day that passes could bring surprises, even "bitter" ones!

Scheiber, but especially Jon Chait, never seem to learn anything at all! Ever since Chait had declared 'Hillary=toast'  just before NH on the basis of a similar rationale (that she could not possibly beat the odds and win but he had to eat crow when she proved him wrong with her NH Houdini act), he's been pushing for her to quit the race every chance he got. However, the rationale for Hillary not to quit the race is plain enough for some of us who support her and believe that she would make a better GE candidate and POTUS: Obama has not yet won the nomination, and as long as the superdelegates still seem to want to perpetuate this thing by not putting him over the top, Hillary cannot and will not quit. In fact, the strongest rationale for her to forge on has just been provided by none other than Obama himself: His ill-conceived and ill-timed "bitter" remarks [see 12 reasons as to why at 'politico.com']. In my view, those remarks make an Obama GE win almost impossible. Long odds have just gotten longer and the superdelegates have every right to take that fact into account in deciding who they believe would help the Dems avoid a third lock out of the White House in as many presidential election cycles. Would another "speech" bail him out this jam? And how about out of the next jam? You get the point...As long as Obama has not secured the nomination, there is a chance for something "unflattering" about him to be exposed, which might further expose what some of us have always felt was a weak candidacy that was elevated, hyped and driven by the pundits [e.g., TNR], who praised Obama at every turn despite a paper thin record and going gaga over utterly sophomoric  pronouncements, while constantly pillorying Hillary.

"Sounds like Noam has a case of the sour grapes. The election is 7 months away, and Obama is not the nominee."

Maybe he just really wants a Democrat in the White House. And the only way this is happening from here on out is Obama. And the sooner the better. But noooooo. Sour grapes.

I don't quite see the analogy.  I have read a number of college students' senior theses in my time, from superficial to thorough.  The depth will depend on the capacities of the student and the work and thought they've put into said thesis.  In fact, Obama's social analysis appears to be right on the button -- irrespective of whether he should have used those particular words or not.  In terms of depth, Obama could have drowned Romney and Guiliani in one bucket, and he may do the same with McCain.

roidubouloi  said:

"It is appalling that the Clinton campaign treats the serious issues of job loss and job creation as if they were a question of waving the flag.  This is the sort of political cynicism that has been leaving working people to struggle against competition from countries where wages are as little as 10 cents an hour."

This is a non sequitur: It is totally irrelevant with respect to what is offensive in Obama's remark...

Most people who are trying to defend him by saying that he "spoke the truth" seem to miss what is "offensive" in his remarks. He was absolutely right in saying that people in a number of communities in America are very anxious about the country's economic woes, but it was offensive (at least to me) for him to suggest that those folks in middle America are "clinging to their guns or their religion" as a result. I am almost sure that those same folks who he is suggesting have found God because  they are down on their economic luck, went to church or hunting (maybe more so) even when the economy was humming in the 90s. The implication of a causality between the downturn in one's economic outlook and one's faith is offensive and is reminiscent of the Gospel according to Reverend Dr. Jeremiah...Let's "cling" to God so that He would damn America for turning its back on the less fortunate among us...

Yeah, and the Obama campaign's non-stop effort to destroy the reputation of the only successful two term Democratic presidency in half a century (equating it with the dismally failed Bush administration) and paint the first American president to make a serious attempt to bring minorities into the highest levels of government and create an administration that "looks like America" as a racist (thereby confirming the Republican view that Democrats are phonies and hypocrites on matters of race) has done so much good for the party.

I sure hope Americans buy that "I learned everything I need to know about foreign policy as a 6 year old" line -- because, having trashed his party and it's recent history, Obama  is not going to have anything to run on in November except his an exceedingly slim resume, personality and biography.

"Yes, all this might be fair game ... IF OBAMA WEREN'T OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!"

Did you forget what Obama did to Clinton when Clinton was  OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE?

dcshungu asks: "Would another "speech" bail him out this jam? And how about out of the next jam? You get the point...As long as Obama has not secured the nomination, there is a chance for something "unflattering" about him to be exposed..."

At least he *has* the capacity to use public speaking to get himself out of "jams", by addressing the American people directly and honestly. Clinton, by contrast, seems to prefer evasion, spin, or papering over the unflattering things about her that come to light. And there have been an almost comedic number of these things in the last month or two. She "fires" Penn... but, wait, no, he retains an integral presence in her campaign. She claims she was tired and "misspoke" about Tuzla; but she did so three times, once from a prepared script, *after* being called out on the story by the press. Her campaign can offer no good reason for why it didn't properly vet the details of the Ohio hospital story, which raises questions about competence. And Clinton has no response to offer when Democrats who are concerned about her ability to run a general election campaign against the Republicans point nervously to her disastrous mismanagement of her own campaign. Her campaign organization has exposed her lack of leadership, lack of judgment in hiring and coordinating staff, lack of responsiveness to changing circumstance, and lack of skill in budgeting and responsibly using resources. In light of this record, there's a higher chance of Clinton's being caught out over the next few months by "unflattering things being exposed" and of her not being able to satisfactorily address these things, than there is for Obama.

Hillary should do everything in her power to save the Democratic Party from Barack Mondale Obama.  

Yes, this includes speaking the truth about His Holiness's leftist ideologies, laughable inexperience, overwhelming sanctimony, and general unelectability.  And this doesn't even get into calling him on his lies, which she should also do.  So no, Noam, it doesn't matter how much you claim Hillary is destroying the party; after all, repeating your claim doesn't make it true.  Were Obama to secure the nomination, it would be the biggest Pyrrhic victory in American politics.

November's already shaping up to the be a shocker for Obama worshipers everywhere.  I imagine there will be mass suicides of Heaven's Gate proportions when the Followers find out that the Prophet can't even carry Massachusetts -- not when Romney finagles himself onto the ticket with Mr. McCain.

-- Likewise, Pennsylvania and Ohio go red because Reagan Democrats don't like being condescended to.

--Florida pulls the lever for McCain because neither the Jewish and Cuban Americans in Miami nor the working class folks in the Panhandle buy the bullshit.

--Michigan gives Obama the finger because, well, he gave them the finger.  And they won't need much urging to do so because supporting Mitt Romney as V.P. will be a vote for the Home Team.

--Hispanics throughout the Southwest flood to McAmnesty because they never trusted Obama in the first place.  Obama even has to spend millions in California because he can't bank on Hispanic turning out to put him over the top.

--Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana do exactly what they were always going to do.

And despite all the smoke that's been blown up our asses, it's Obama who will be going down in flames.

At this point, however, all the Scheiberian pundits out there will beat their breasts in agony over how terrible it is that Hillary "ruined" the election for Obama.  Alas, no one will bother to remember that Obama never won a single primary that demonstrated support among the demographic groups a Democrat needs to win the Presidency.  In fact, such primaries, Mr. Obama lost, and lost spectacularly.

Okay, you all have convinced me that Obama is a cipher, and that tep was right. But he was right about opposition to Obama, not support. He's too far left, or too centrist. He's not a traditional enough dem, he's too traditional. He's a baby killer, he's soft on abortion. He appeals too much to GOP voters, GOP voters will never vote for him. Etc. Ad infinitum.

Tep at least is constitutionally wired this way, and would be kvetching no matter who the presumptive nominee is (even if it were Biden). But some of the other folks here, their opposition to Obama is a position constantly in search of a rationale.

Chill out, y'all--Noam included.  

All you Clinton supporters out there, piss and moan all you like.  As has been repeated ad nauseum on this site, Clinton has no chance.  You can rage that Obama's the wrong man until the cows come home, but he's still going to be the nominee.  You're just beating your heads on the wall.  It hurts you a hell of a lot more than it hurts Obama.

As for all you Obama supporters out there, please relax.  Your man's going to blow McCain out of the water in November.  Take a look at that youtube link above.  (Thanks miceelf.)  McCain's got nothing to answer that.  Nothing.  His (limited) appeal in 2000 had everything to do with the public's perception of him as being his own man and a different kind of Republican, ready to stand up to big business and K-street elites.  But over the past 5 years he's sold that all out just to get where he is today, and now for all intents and purposes he's running on the promise of a third Bush term!  You think that message has legs?  Seriously?  He's old, he's short, he's got cancer, he's negated his own legislative priorities--cue the flip-flopper ads--and he's making the centerpiece of his campaign his affinity for the policy prescriptions of a sitting president with a 28% approval rating--in a RECESSION ECONOMY!   McCain is completely, absolutely, 100% FUCKED.  I'm giving Obama a 7% popular vote margin in the GE.  This Clinton stuff is a complete sideshow.  No effect whatsoever on the end result.  To repeat myself--and to quote Frankie--RELAX.  

Sabatia- yes, I was kidding. You would have to have watched Anchorman to get it, and the fact that you don't is probably a point in your favor. :-)

Aeromonas- wise, if optimistic, words.

I hope you're right, Aeromonas.  But this has to be the worst thing that has happened to the Obama campaign so far, much worse than Wright's three minutes of infamy. Except for places like Rhode Island and DC, "Bittergate", penetrates deep into every state Obama needs to carry.  For example, think of what this will do to his numbers in Iowa, which had looked like the most likely red to blue switch in the country only a couple of days ago.

I'm starting to believe that Gore is the answer for this election, with Obama as VP.

Oh, come on.  This thing's gone in a week.  The only people who even know about it are those who read the New York Times.  And how exactly is it so condescending anyway?  Or more practically speaking how are Obama's opponents going to package these remarks in such a way that it 1) makes Obama SEEM condescending and 2) reaches those voters who supposedly have been condescended to?  In less than 48 hours, the sound bite has already congealed around "bitter," as in "Obama says rust belt whites are bitter."  But that is a laughably easy pivot point as you can easily see in miceelf's youtube clip.  "I DID say some of those folks are bitter.  You'd probably feel bitter too if you were in their situation.  In fact, some of you here in Indiana might feel bitter right now for the very same reasons."

The pundits are talking about "bitter" as if it's automatically an insult, but plainly it is not.  Quite commonly people who feel themselves to have been wronged in one way or another refer to themselves as bitter.  It's rough synonym is "pissed-off."  Politicians never go wrong acknowledging pissed-off people's pissed-offedness.

(Note that I am in no way attempting to defend the content of Obama's remarks.  I merely seek to address the ways his remarks can and will be handled by the respective campaigns.)

The fact that he said folks are bitter is not the problem. The problem is that he said their bitterness then manifests itself into clinging to religion and to guns, etc., which is not only insulting it is patently false, siince small town people have been religious and devoted to guns long before anyone ever heard of globalization.

Well, I hope you're right.  We'll see.  A Gore/Obama ticket would be something though, probably a Democratic landslide that we haven't seen since Johnson in '64.      

esnonsense,

You got any fact, example, anything whatsoever to back up your claim that Obama has trashed Bill Clinton's presidency?  While the public and the press have given Hillary a well-deserved hard time, because she is a serial liar, Obama, consistent with his rhetoric, has barely laid a hand on either Bill or Hillary.  It grieves me, because it wouldn't take much to blow those two narcissists to hell and back.  But icarusr is no doubt right that it would be self-defeating.  Better just to let the Clintons blow themselves up as they are clearly so capable of doing.

A little review of the bidding is in order, not because it makes a difference to any outcome, but just to provide some rhetorical balance for the latest eruption of Hillarista fulmination:

1.  Hillary's campaign narrative that she is "tested, vetted, experienced, ready" was and is a patent fraud as has been clear to any thinking person from the gitgo.  She flunked the DC bar exam and ended up as a nothing lawyer at a nothing law firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.  I practiced law at one of the top Wall Street law firms.  I had certainly heard of every important firm in every important city in the US and done business with most of them (the Texans were the toughest negotiators, but real smooth talkers, quiet. When you left the room, you had to check to make sure you were still wearing your pants).   Until it appeared on Hillary's resume, I had never in my life heard of The Rose Law Firm (what a ridiculous pretentious name, so Hillary).

2.  Then she was married to the Governor of Arkansas and the President of the United States.  That is not job training, contrary to what the Hillarista resume puffers would like us all to believe.  Her one foray into serious political affairs -- the Clinton health-care initiative that Bill gave her as the payoff for standing by him during the Gennifer Flowers affair -- was a complete debacle that cost the Democrats the House of Representatives for the first time in decades and resulted in her banishment to the tea and cookie circuit.

3.  She has no useful experience in running for political office.  The nomination for the US Senate was a gift from Charlie Rangel.  She did not even have to contend for that.  Then she ran against nothing -- LI Congressman Rick Lazio who looks and sounds as though he is 18 years old and is at a frat party.  In her re-election campaign she spent, I don't know, more the $30 million to run against a total nobody.  No one even remembers the guy's name.  She has never had to fight a political battle and win it against a capable opponent.  Never.  And she isn't doing so now.

4.  Her career in the Senate has been completely undistinguished.  She arrived with celebrity that might have enabled her to accomplish a lot.  Nothing.  She has written two pieces of legislation that were enacted and I cannot for the life of me find out what they were.

5.  Her voting record in the Senate is marked by political cowardice and opportunism, from her sponsorship of anti-flag burning legislation to her Iraq vote to her disappearance on the bankruptcy bill. The speech she gave to accompany her craven Iraq vote is impossible to reconcile with her vote in any principled way unless you actually believe that, unlike every other person on the face of the planet, Hillary alone believed that the decision to invade Iraq had not already been made by Bush.  She declared all the reasons why one ought not vote for the invasion, and then voted for it as the politically safe thing to do, not as a senator from New York but as someone who never saw her seat in the Senate as anything other than a platform from which to run for president.

6.  Her campaign organization and strategy have been abysmal, relying on the assumption that her nomination was inevitable.  This is itself astonishing as she has the highest negatives of any politician on the national stage.  Not only did the name Clinton put here where she is despite her lack of personal accomplishment of any kind, but it has enabled her to remain in the race when those negatives alone would have made a run by anyone else preposterous.  That, however, doesn't mean that in the end she can overcome the fact that she is intensely disliked by a broad swath of the electorate.  The hysterical Hillaristas have no trouble in attributing the fact that Obama struggles with certain demographic groups to personal failings of his -- real or imagined.  It never, ever dawns on them that the fact that Hillary is reviled by millions of people might have something to do with her personal failings.

7.  Stupidly, and characteristically for her with her political tin ear, after launching a campaign that was based not on her ideas for the country but on her puffed up resume, she continued to press her phony claims of experience in attacks on Obama.  When, as was inevitable, the press started to question her own claims of experience, she responded with a bunch of fibs and outright lies to bolster her claim -- making peace in Ireland, Bosnia, here and there -- all quickly debunked with the result that her phony claim of experience came crashing down.  She would have been wiser to just let the whole thing be.  Then, smarting with embarrassment that her claims were not being taken seriously, she made up the absurd series of lies about her visit to Bosnia to bolster her importance, and kept repeating them even after they were debunked, on videotape no less -- that is, until the ridicule began.  That gaffe alone is bigger than all the mistakes Obama has made rolled into one.

8.  Unlike Obama, who certainly has made rhetorical missteps, as all candidates do, and who will no doubt make some more before the end, Hillary does not merely choose her words inartfully at times.  No.  She makes up full-blown fairy tales and peddles them from the stump.  And when it is noted that her husband and her chief strategist are being paid to shill for a trade agreement she claims to oppose, she dismisses the question as akin to "the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin."

9.  Probably the only thing that restrains her inherent desire to do a full-blown Karl Rove, Swift-boat attack on Obama is the knowledge that, the moment she does so, the party leadership will pull the trigger on the remaining super-delegates who would then bury her campaign by declaring their support and making it obvious that the race is over.

10.  The race is over.  Piss, moan, whine as the Hillaristas may and do, perpetually imagining that there is some new opening that is going to change the outcome or desperately trying to create one by their explosive response to some minor event, the nomination is already out of Hillary's reach.   Count on this.  If Wright didn't sink Obama and Tuzla didn't sink Hillary, Obama's few ill-chosen words on jobless Pennsylvanians is not going to make a blip.  Only in that fantasies of Hillary and her supporters is there still a bona fide race, but the delegate math and the popular vote math are already ineluctable.  This has been permitted to go on only because the judgment of Pelosi, Dean, et alia thus far is that the damage to the party by having the supers appear to cut off the race before the end, and the wrath of Hillaristas whose fantasies would have been exposed as just that, would be worse than letting the race continue.   The moment it looks like Hillary the narcissist may in fact do serious damage to the party's prospects in November, that will end.  And once the last few major races are over and there is no longer even a fantasy argument that Hillary could win, the supers will end it in any case so that the party can turn its attentions to McCain.

11.  The fact that the supers will not end it now is the clearest indication that they have not the slightest intention of over-turning the outcome of the primaries and caucuses.  They don't even want to look like they might be cutting off the choices of even a fraction of the electorate, let alone reverse the choice of the 18 million Democrats who will have participated in the primaries and caucuses.  That they might do so is just another Hillarista fantasy.  Remember, it is Hillary who has been importuning the supers left, right and sideways not to declare before the primaries are over.  Do you think she would be doing that if she thought they were disposed toward her?  Not at all.  She is just hoping against hope that something might yet occur that will change the widespread perception of her as a loser.  But the perception is reality.  Hillary is an unaccomplished loser who has ridden her husband's celebrity to 15 minutes of fame.  Her 15 minutes is about up.

Goodbye, Hillary.

roidubouloi,

Why do you continue   clinging to religion of Obama church? Why are you so bitter?

I'm not the slightest bit bitter jacobt1.  I am on the winning side on this one.  Why be bitter?  I simply cannot abide Hillary Clinton and delight in puncturing the increasingly bizarre gyrations of the Hillaristas on her behalf.

We have a strange disease in our body politic in which, the further right you go, whether within the Democratic party, over into the Republican party, or off into the crackpot fringe, the more people feel entitled to resort to offensive, purple rhetoric in attacking their political opponents.  It has been my personal little mission -- in real life politics not just on the pages of some blog -- to respond to this sort of thing in kind, but from the left.  And then watch the jumped-up right shriek with horror that anyone could possibly use such language with regard to them or the things they hold dear.  And the more they whine about being treated in the manner the treat everyone else, the more I like to stick the sword in.  And, let me tell you, it works in the context of an election campaign.  As long as you stay just this side of their nastiness, you can attack the mercilessly and the melt into a puddle of incoherent rage.

This little debate is no different.  You perceive what I have to say as "bitter," but you are quite unmoved by the nasty emanations from the Hillaristas, above, no matter how unmoored from reality.  I don't want to inhibit them.  Let them blaze away at Obama.  It's politics after all.  But then I, and anyone else who care's to, getg to enjoy rubbing their noses in the incoherence and hypocrisy of their attacks on Obama and in the heaping pile of political crap that is Hillary Clinton.

PS  I cling to the religion of the Obama church, as you put it jacobt1, because I see no future for the Democratic party in backing a proven liar and loser like Hillary Clinton.  The only reason she is not a dry husk that has already been blown away is that Obama, in accordance with his rhetoric, has been reluctant to attack her.  John McCain trumps her every claim about her resume.  Once the Republicans go to work, she would quickly be toast.  Obama is not a sure bet, but at least he is a good shot -- and the polls reflect that.

roidubouloi

You seem to be trying to convince yourself that Obama is the "right choice" for the Dems this Fall. Is he? That is a legitimate question, especially since HE IS NOW INEVITABLE, as you and TNR keep telling us. However, that you keep trying to convince yourself about Obama's viability is, in fact, why Hillary won't drop out. A day is an eternity in politics and each new day could bring "bitter" surprises. Deep down, many traditional Dems are uneasy about Obama, and rightly so: Two veteran political journalists have a sobering piece at 'politico.com' this morning that you ought to take a look at. It would would confirm your unease about Obama.  Is he the best candidate for the Dems? I think that he will lose in a landslide, but that is just me...

Hillary Clinton is essentially running a Republican campaign during the Democratic primary. Let's see how well that will work for her. It may be that Democrats aren't ready for a change, in which case they will once again lose swing voters to the Republicans or force them to sit out the next election or vote for a third party candidate like Ralph Nader. The "guns and faith" argument is one that Obama made at least as far back as 2004 on the Charlie Rose show (search "veracifier" on YouTube and look for "Obama on working class"). But it is a nuanced sociological argument -- not at all the ham-handed statement as picked up and simplified by mass media -- but, sigh -- America is not a land of ideas -- certainly not during a presidential election. So we will allow the Clintonista's once again to dumb-down the election and play to superficial impressions to try to paint Obama now as an "elitist." The Clinton's spin wildly -- before they were trying to paint him as "Jesse Jackson." Will this Clintonian strategy of dumbing down elections win? Is it good for the Democratic Party? Is it good for the nation? Well, Hillary is determined to win; I don't think she cares very much about the means to that end.

dcshungu,

I cannot imagine how or why you infer that I am trying to convince myself of Obama's viability or anything else about him.  You simply impute that to me because it furthers your narrative that there is or should still be some remaining question about the nominee.  I have none, and there isn't.  Your pitch is just more of the desperate effort to make it appear that there is still some race to be run in the Democratic party.

I am absolutely convinced that Hillary Clinton is a completely incompetent politician with a record of failure.  The reason for her to drop out is so that the party as a whole can turn its attentions to the general election.  Don't you think it helps the Republican party that there is no longer an open contest there?  But I have no illusions that Hillary will get off the stage a moment before she is forced to get off the stage, and maybe not even then.  I think it is the responsibility of all good Democrats to excoriate her for her narcissism and lack of regard for the party's fortunes.  She has the "right" to run.  We have the right to criticize her  mercilessly for doing so.

Contrariwise, I am absolutely convinced that Obama is a rare political talent who, by his convincing kicking of Hillary's butt despite her many initial advantages, has demonstrated overwhelmingly that he is the best chance for the Democrats to capture the White House.  Unlike some here, I do not believe that the job of president is to be policy-wonk in chief.  Neither do the American people who have repeatedly rejected earnest policy wonks like Hillary in favor of charismatic politicians who have, what Bush the I so trenchantly referred to as "the vision thing."  

I have no unease about Obama.  At the same time, I do not delude myself that the general election is over.  If you are uneasy, that is your problem.  But Hillary Clinton sure as hell isn't the answer.  You don't win elections by nominating proven political losers.

Hillary does not drop out because she is a self-serving narcissist who cannot bear the thought that her moment of glory is over.  She is not remaining in the pretend race to spare me and the Democrats from Obama.

matthawk,

As a matter of political rhetoric, Obama had best remember that it is important to avoid "nuanced arguments" of all kinds.  Those are not the stuff of successful election campaigns.  He can think it all he wants, but if you have to deconstruct the rhetoric, it is not good politics.

Hillary is done, over, finished.  That she is willing to run a Republican campaign in order to hang onto her little moment in the sun a wee bit longer is yet more evidence, as if any were needed, that she has never cared one whit about the fortunes of the Democratic party which she has never done anything to advance.

roidubouloi  said:

"dcshungu,

I cannot imagine how or why you infer that I am trying to convince myself of Obama's viability or anything else about him."

Your long laundry list of why Clinton is All Bad and Obama is All Good this late in the game betrays insecurity, as it does TNR's staff. If you are so sure of your candidate, is it not time to reach out to those in the party who did not support him, to ensure that the 'inevitabble' candidate would get enough support from within to help prevail in GE? Obama's odds are very long against McCain, especially after the "bitter" pill that many in purple states such as PA would find hard to swallow

My sense from yesterday's developments in the "small town" flap was that Hillary was doing

naomi88, you say "The fact that he said folks are bitter is not the problem. The problem is that he said their bitterness then manifests itself into clinging to religion and to guns, etc., which is not only insulting it is patently false, siince small town people have been religious and devoted to guns long before anyone ever heard of globalization."

True in a way, but wrong.  The problem is that up until relatively recently small town people did not use religion and guns as their only criteria for voting.  Kansas was just as religious and just as devoted to weapons back in the early 20 century when it was at the leading edge of progrssive/populist surge of the era.

"Why do you continue   clinging to religion of Obama church? Why are you so bitter?"

Agh! Sniper fire! You can't ask these kind of questions when I'm getting of a goddamn plane! It's a freaking war zone in here!

roidubouloi,

"The only reason she is not a dry husk that has already been blown away is that Obama, in accordance with his rhetoric, has been reluctant to attack her."

Obama has been attacking viciously Clinton from the start of this campaign. You just don’t notice this because you hate Clinton and consider most vicious slander against her  to be just truth

Rozenson,

I see your point.  We have two terrible candidates.

Sure, Obama said it wrong. It was the Republican neo-cons who have clung to "guns, religion, anti-immigration, and hate for non-like people" as a smoke screen to get elected and pursue a very different agenda in support of the wealthy elite and corporations. Indeed, the working have good reason for bitterness in this regard. I wish Obama had said it this way.

Yeah jacobt1, you are right.  I have completely missed Obama attacking Hillary, viciously or otherwise, since the beginning of the campaign.  So has the rest of the world.  But any references you would like to furnish for your thesis would be most welcome.

Lots of other people have attacked Hillary, in the press, the blogosphere, the punditocracy, but that is a fact of political life.  The citizens get to have their say.

dschungu,

You want to psychologize my long list of Hillary's flaws as a candidate as evidence of uncertainty about Obama, enjoy yourself.  In my opinion, so long as Hillary is on the attack, which is not in the interests of the party, all good Democrats should push back by criticizing her without letup and making her pay a price in the polls. That way, at least if she wants some future in the party, she will think about boundaries and, if she doesn't, the party hierarchy will be moved to put an end to her by pulling the trigger on the supers if necessary.  She should not get a free pass to engage in this behavior damaging to the party.  The time to "reach out" to Hillaristas, if indeed such is possible, is when Hillary graciously concedes the nomination.  Until that day, she is fair game, especially when doing the Republicans' work for them.  She may have the right to run, we citizens have a right and responsibility to trash her for it. It is ironic in the extreme that you think it perfectly fine for her to attack Obama on whatever pretext but not alright for the voters to attack her for doing so.  It is OUR rights that are at stake in this election, as in any election, not hers or his.

You think of my list of Hillary's flaws as evidence that I am uncertain about Obama.  I think of it as my tiny contribution to the welfare of the Democratic party in this presidential election year.

*  *  *

On the substance of Obama's remarks, he had better learn to assume that everything he says, even what he whispers to his wife in the middle of the night, is going to be public sooner or later and not let down his guard wherever he may be.  He had also better learn never to say anything that could be perceived as criticizing the voters.  They are the subject of his courtship and he must behave accordingly.  Also, he had better learn not to say things that are so nuanced that they require ANY further clarification.  Anything he says should be clear the first time and bulletproof.  His opponents will make mischief in any way they can with whatever he says.  He has to give them as few opportunities as humanly possible.  Had Obama framed his point differently -- attacking politicians who try to exploit religion, social issues, etc. -- to pit groups against each other and to draw attention away from people's economic troubles, he could have made the same point without any of the problems.  

When I was on the campaign stump, I had a guy stop me in front of a bakery at 6:30 am and ask me what I thought about the plan for electric-generating windmills in the ocean off the south shore of Long Island.  For a lot of unrelated reasons, I was feeling cranky on the subject and said that I thought it was a crackpot scheme.  The guy then told me that was interesting because it was his plan -- and it was!  Boy, was I shocked.  It never really came back to bite me, but it was a vivid and cheap lesson for me on never making any assumptions about the audience and NEVER saying anything that you would not want repeated or that can be spun to mean other than what you want it to mean.

"True in a way, but wrong.  The problem is that up until relatively recently small town people did not use religion and guns as their only criteria for voting.  Kansas was just as religious and just as devoted to weapons back in the early 20 century when it was at the leading edge of progrssive/populist surge of the era."

Irony,

First of all, I think Obama was referring to small town voters in the rust belt states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and perhaps Illinois and Indiana who were affected by plant closings, etc.,  and not to voters in the prairie states such as Kansas, where the voting dynamics are quite different.  More importantly, I don't think it is correct to claim that the rust belt small town voters “use religion and guns as their only criteria for voting."  Some of them may do so, but the vast majority still consider bread and butter issues or national security issues to be the dominant issues affecting their voting preferences.  It was insulting and thoughtless of Obama to have let such a sweeping generalization escape from his lips, regardless of his true intent. We can only hope that it has not caused permanent widespread damage to his efforts to woo non-urban voters, not only in the rust belt but throughout small town America.

Obama probably needs 30 to 35% of the non-urban vote  to win the presidency, and the prospect of him doing so took a direct hit with the release of these statements (thank you, Huff Post).  And I say that as someone who never thought the Wright flap would inflict long-term damage, because the incendiary comments in that case were not made by the candidate himself.  His comments about small town voters are categorically different however, and are more along the lines of McCain's "100 year war" gaffe.  Both “Bittergate” and “100 years war” will be used against the respective candidates again and again during the general campaign.  I still think the principal campaign issues (the economy, Iraq, McCain's age and general creakiness v. Obama’s inexperience) all favor Obama, but I'm a lot less confident today than I was last week.  

naomi, you seriously overestimate the importance of "bittergate" as you chose to label this weekend's episode.  First, it won't be as damaging to Obama as "100 years" will be to McCain and second "100 years" won't be all that damaging to McCain.

"Bittergate" resists sound bite packaging in tv commercials; Obama's quoted statements are convoluted enough to ensure that.  And to the degree that the flippable, rural, right-of-center values voters who are the target audience for any attacks based on Obama's statement are even paying attention this weekend--I submit that most of them are not--by November they'll have forgotten.

The only way this is truly damaging is if it reflects a pattern, if Obama continues to make this kind of gaffe, and right now I don't see any evidence that this is the case.  If anything this may be an educational experience for candidate Obama, just painful enough to sear it on his memory and help him avoid bigger trouble in the future.