"and those who do think they're killing Hillary may actually want to by now."

Violence is not the solution.

Hillary was "eliminated" after the last big round of primaries.  However, as rhubarbs has pointed out, the only thing that can force a candidate to throw in the towel (a Baracky metaphor) is running out of money.  Howard Dean has called on the supers to disclose their intentions sooner rather than later.  If PA is close, it may happen then.  If not, after NC the supers will eliminate Hillary once and for all.

Let's not be deluded.  Hillary's continued "run" has been a dog-and-pony show only.  Hillary's interest has been served because it has enabled her to keep her presidential fantasies alive a while longer.  She still gets to go to sleep thinking, "Maybe, just maybe."  The party's interests have been served to the extent that the Hillaristas, particularly the boomer women, don't feel that "the boys" prematurely cut-off Hillary's campaign "while she still had a chance."  The party hopes that they will therefore give their enthusiastic backing to Obama once the grieving is over.

This is a good test for the Bradley Effect -- if Obama does well/ok and the recent poll numbers hold, I think it's time to forget about it.  How are so many people undecided at this point anyway?  

My own psychobabble is that folks are sick of this contest -- especially the sniping over non-issue issues -- and Obama, as the front-runner, will benefit from the sense that it's about time to rally-'round-the-nominee.

"Violence is not the solution."

At this point, it may be. Hillary won't drop out otherwise.

If anyone made these comments about Obama (or Dubya) and violence the FBI would be gathering IP addresses about now...

(I know, Secret Service, not FBI...)

No problem at all with psychoanalytical mumbo jumbo. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

If you guys can't figure out a way to make comments and discussions work normally outside the tent revival meeting that TNR's blogs have now become, then could we at least have two subscription tiers, one for read-only, another for those who want to rave and rapture with other true believers?

Tep-

", another for those who want to rave and rapture with other true believers?"

Come on, my friend.  Now you are just getting insulting.  There have been several good discussions this week on the proliferation of nukes.  Could have used you there.  No one is making you read mumbo-jumbo.  

Rave and rapture, huh?  So anyone who votes for Obama is enraptured and anyone who votes for Clinton or McCain is what?  A steel-eyed realist?  Give me a break.  If anyone is enraptured it is HRC's supporters.  Supporting a person who says she has experience, but can't prove it without lying about what she did?  A person who ascended to her present position ( I mean both Senator and Presidential candidate) mostly because of who she married?  Supporting someone who claims that her opponent is condescending, yet says that all his supporters are simply dumbstruck by his oratory.  

Or should all of these dumb Obama supporters switch allegiance to someone who supports an unpopular war, has a laughable economic policy, has anger-managment problems and whose greatest claim to political fame was having the foresight to hitch his horse to a real maverick (Feingold).

You should face facts:  There are only 3 candidates.  None of them is you or whomever else you might want to support for President.  That doesn't mean that someone who supports one of the candidates is a "true believer."   (As an aside, calling someone a true believer has the same ring to it as saying someone is bitter and clings to beliefs).  

I agree that people are getting sick of this contest, and ironically, one of the biggest reasons why is that there hasn't BEEN an actual contest for nearly 2 months. The one thing that the constant horserace did was "somewhat" tamp down the obsession with these manufactured issues because at least every week (sometimes twice a week) there were actual votes to report and delegate tallies. For the past 6 weeks there has been nothing but media-fed nonsense.

We'll see if jhildner is right. If Obama comes closer than expected, I think we can say that sentiment has filtered down to the voters (It is clear many supers feel that way). And a close vote in PA would certainly encourage more supers to fall in behind Obama. .

As an aside, I've been really surprised by the number of talking heads claining that hillary WON the last debate. While Obama certainly was flat - less impressive than most times - I thought Hillary was the one who came across as over the top, phony, and snippy. And for god sake I can't stand that phony, forced laugh whenever she wants to dismiss a point. It is so overdone that it is pitiful.

The only way Hillary will get out after PA is if she loses by double digits.  Even a loss by a small margin, prior rhetoric notwithstanding, wouldn't do it.  She will have a new explanation about how she owes it to herself and the party and the world and the galaxy to continue her campaign.  She'd probably say her millions of supporters have told her that she can't quit.

It will require the super-delegates finally to declare their intentions, as Dean has requested, to give Obama an absolute majority and dry up Hillary's funding and the cover that she is doing something for the common good rather than merely to sustain her narcissistic fantasies.  Even Hillary does not want to be ridiculed by her peers.

The question is whether PA will be close enough that the supers will consider they can declare without appearing to cut-off a bona fide contest.  If not, then it will take NC for Obama to deliver the final blow and the party hierarchy to say enough already.

I don't believe for one minute that most of the supers who have withheld a commitment have done so without being asked by the party leadership not to.  And when the leadership pulls the trigger, it will end.

tep, are you saying that I'm so "bitter" about Hillary that I'm "clinging" to Obama?

Because, come to think of it, that would be a true statement.

tep, the next time you feel an urge to complain about the level of discussion here, go read a few threads at Ben Smith's blog at Politico or kos.  The worst discussion here is a graduate seminar in international economics compared to the stuff people post most places.

The late deciders will cut decisively for Hillary in PA. If she gets a 10% margin or better, her supporters will cough up enough additional money to fund her through IN, NC and WV.  

Very odd notion that late deciders will cut for Hillary.

Tim's right about the discussions on the other sites -- today Marc Ambinder closed down his comment section temporarily because it got too gutteral.  

roid, can you point to any evidence that would suggest that late-deciders would _not_ break for Hillary? I hope they don't, but at the moment I don't see any reason to object to a prediction that they will.

Rhubarbs said:

tep, are you saying that I'm so "bitter" about Hillary that I'm "clinging" to Obama?

Because, come to think of it, that would be a true statement.

Excellent comment!

tep complains on every single Obama thread. Whenever someone says anything positive about Obama, tep is there to wring his hands and throw around phrases like "cult members" and "love fest" and "tent revival." It's gotten to the point that I can predict what his comment will be before I click on a thread. He doesn't think there's anything positive to say about Obama, that Obama has no substance whatever, and that anyone who likes the guy is clearly a deluded nut. He's got a lot of nerve complaining about the tone of the posts and comments.

As to this subject of this thread, didn't Hillary have a pretty consistent 19-point lead in Pennsylvania at one recent point in the proceedings? There's your benchmark for her success.

I think the "undecideds for Hillary" is based on three things:

1 - late deciders break for the familiar.

2 - Undecideds in the weeks up to previous primaries have gone for Obama, *except* for those who decided in the last 2-3 days, who generally went for Hillary.  See 1 above.

3 - Bradley effect.

However, I think there may be countervailing forces at work here.  I think Hillary will probably win by 4-5, but there is a one-in-four chance that Obama could pull an upset.  It will depend on turnout.

Rhubarbs,

The conventional wisdom is that undecideds typically break more or less like the decideds -- or at least that that is the null hypothesis.  A lot of the undecideds remain that way and don't vote at all.  As to whether the undecideds will break markedly different from 50-50 (about what the race is), you can argue that, with Hillary the known quantity and original favorite by a wide margin, if they were going to vote for Hillary, the would have decided to do so by now.  Hence, the movement is toward Obama.  And, indeed, in general the movement has been in his direction.  Or you could argue that the undecideds are considering being daring  by voting Obama but, in the end, will "go home."  

I think it is actually fairly unpredictable and volatile, that not materially different than 50-50 is still most likely (meaning that the margin given to one or the other candidate by the undecideds will be small), and that the argument that the movement in the undecideds will be in the direction of the general movement, i.e., toward Obama is the better argument in historical terms.  

The undecideds aren't that important.  The real question is whether the polls are reliable or whether something in the temper of the electorate is so volatile that the polls are a poor predictor.

I tend to be a pessimist when it comes to this sort of thing, but I'm almost willing to consider the possibility of an Obama upset in Penny. For the simple reason that the Nationals have been stomping my heart into the dirt night after night for three weeks now, quite gratuitously, as though the universe is trying to make me pay in advance, daily installments of suffering for some future happy event.

But more likely, the Nats will go on losing and Hillary will go on wrecking the Democratic Party with a win in Pennsylvania, because the constancy of suffering is after all the First Noble Truth.

Well, Obama might pull off an upset, but most likely Hillary will eke out a win and continue to run.  By the end of NC, she will be further behind in delegates and popular votes than she is today.  At that point, it ought to be possible to pull the plug as her "come from behind" narrative simply won't be at all plausible any more, for anyone.  If she loses PA, I think the supers will declare and end it.  If she ekes out the win, I expect continued drift of supers toward Obama but no wholesale movement until after NC.

I suppose that counts as suffering.

rhubarbs, I am a pessimist too, I still can't believe Obama won Wisconsin, especially during the last few days when she tried to tag him with the whole "plagirist" line. Actually, it is hard to know what will happen because it has been so rare that Hillary has won. She has won 2 out of the last 13, and even the one in Texas was split because of the caucus.

I still think Hillary will win fairly comfortably, but I really have no idea. I did send it my absentee ballot today, but it probably won't arrive in time. It took them forever to get it to me.

blackton,

Generally election laws require only that an absentee ballot be post-marked on or before the day of the election.  They count them manually after they count machine votes.  Sometimes, if it is clear they will not change any outcome, they count them a lot later just for purpose of certifying the totals.

Your vote will count.  Hillary said so.  She is running so that your vote will count.

I'm guessing Noam was one of the inspirations  for this Politico story about reporters auditioning to be Obama speechwriters.

www.politico.com/.../9718.html

Tep.  I couldn't agree more.  I plan not to renew my TNR subscription.  I signed up for a membership in early March and was thrilled at first.  Then, about two weeks later, it became clear that the TNR writers/editors and bloggers were crafting (and have continued to perpetuate) what I call the Obama inevitability narrative.  Its basic claim is that he has already won the nomination (circa early March) and anything that happens now is insignificant or a simple devious ploy by Clinton to destroy the party.  Take a look at Rhubarbs statement above... that a Hillary victory in PA could only be read as something to destroy the democratic party.  I'm glad you penned the text, Rhubarbs.   You prove my point.  

Let us remember that Obama leads Hillary in the popular vote by about 2.5% (see www.realclearpolitics.com).   I don't suppose you would want to read a CLinton victory in PA as the will of Pennsylvanians?  Could it be that people in PA really do favor Clinton? Naaaaaaa.  The only way to read a Clinton PA victory is that she's tearing apart Dems and damaging poor Obama.  

And then there is what Roid wrote:

Hillary's interest has been served because it has enabled her to keep her presidential fantasies alive a while longer.  She still gets to go to sleep thinking, "Maybe, just maybe."  The party's interests have been served to the extent that the Hillaristas, particularly the boomer women, don't feel that "the boys" prematurely cut-off Hillary's campaign "while she still had a chance."  The party hopes that they will therefore give their enthusiastic backing to Obama once the grieving is over.

Roid, you are awfully condescending to women who support Hillary. Not appreciated, buddy.  Be careful with your macho certainty about the "patronizing" motives of party leaders and what your so-called Hillaristas (a very undemocractic and insulting nickname for her supporters) will do if you guy gets the nod.

Be careful wiith your Obama inevitability narrative.  It might bite you in your ass.

The last time Obama had 6 weeks to campaign in a state - Iowa - the undecideds broke for him. At this point, its a grounds game, and pissing off MoveOn is only going to motivate their GOTV effort for Obama.

If Obama closes the gap here in Pennsylvania to 5 or less percentage points it should not only be seen as a victory for Obama, but it should indicate that maybe the people in Ohio are less solid for Hillary than seemed to be the case last month. We share a very similar demographic with Ohio and during the Ohio primary Pennsylvanians favored Hillary over Obama by nearly 20%. If Obama is able the close the gap so that is loss is less than in the double-digits (even after the Wright controversy, even after Bill Ayers and Hyde Park, even after "elitism", even after Tony Rezco) then Hillary doesn't have a case that Obama is unelectable and the superdelegates should begin to reflect on Hillary's superhigh negatives and her unelectability. Pennsylvania should be a solid victory for Clinton; if it doesn't turn out that way something is terribly, terribly wrong with the Clinton campaign.

peter1943  said:

"I'm guessing Noam was one of the inspirations  for this Politico story (www.politico.com/.../9718.html) about reporters auditioning to be Obama speechwriters."

Peter, you think? In response to a post by Jon Cohn (blogs.tnr.com/.../it-s-almost-unanimous-gibson-amp-steph-were-awful.aspx) that gleefully reported that it was (almost) unanimous that "natives" had decided that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had been "awful"  in moderating Wednesday night's debate, I had commented:

"Obama gets roughed up for a change and the "natives" are agitating like the sky had fallen. He had a bad night because he was out of his element: [no] teleprompter and prepared remarks... This sort of "damage control" won't work in the general election, y'know.

Sure, ABC (Anybody But Clinton) was awful, but so were Russert and the others before that. The difference between now and then? The others had piled on Hillary and not on Obama. Poor Chuck and George...they dared to touch the untouchable candidate. It looks like the "natives" are going to babysit him all the way to the White House...except that before then, he would have to escape the GOP attack dogs who won't be that squeamish. Stay tuned for some rough stuff ahead!"

Well, guess what? John and Jim, those last vestiges and bastions of objective political journalism, have  just echoed and then greatly amplified (www.politico.com/.../9718.html)  what I had tried to state above and repeatedly on this site. So, yes, Peter. I agree with your assertion. Should Obama be elected POTUS, I would not be surprised to see Scheiber or Chait as his press secretary. They have really been that "bad" for their unabashed promotion of Obama. Charles and George were not worse than Russert. Their only crime on Wednesday night was  that they dared to touch the untouchable candidate. These days, if you wish to get the unvarnished political truth, few journalists are as reliable as the Politico's John and Jim, two venerable and veteran political media hands, at providing it...    

Anyone know where to look for the best analysis of the rationale behind the democrats' withdrawal plans? I want military and political strategy and theory. The best out there.

tammya, we'll miss you, but that most writers at this magazine favor a candidate is hardly surprising.  See the Weekly Standard.  Never much question who their guy was.  And so on.  Oh, and you obviously missed the Al Gore Is God years at TNR.

Meanwhile, the magazine and its website continue to post articles by Sean Wilentz and John Judis that are hardly Obamaphilic.  And there's always the ever reliable pccostello (where did she go, anyway?) and lymon1, etc.  Frankly, you get more balance here--and, believe it or not, a lower level of vitriol--than on most blogs, whether connected to magazines or not.  I mean, apart from the occasional "bullshit" and "moron," most of the arguments here are more polite than your typical family quarrel.  If the atmosphere is 7 to 2 in favor of Obama, well, consider the long-suffering Bidenites who posted here at one time.  At least your horse is still in the race, sort of.

tammya@udel.edu  said:

"Roid, you are awfully condescending to women who support Hillary."

With supporters like this ROIDS [feels like one too] fellow, who are working overtime to alienate millions of "Hillaristas" without whose support Obama could not possibly win in November should he be the nominee, why would the Republican smear machine even bother to boot up? What is destroying the Dem party is not Hillary's continued desire persevere (Obama has still not won the requisite number of delegates, y'know), it is the mindlessness of those who are trying to undermine due process by calling on her to quit ,as well as disparaging her and her supporters as somehow being evil Democrats who are on a mission to destroy the party from within.

I have said this repeatedly: Should Obama prevail in the end, I would, as would Hillary, support him. The venom by Obama's kool-aid-drinking "reporters" and supporters on this site has been incomprehensible to me, especially since they are so sure that he is "inevitable". If he were "inevitable", then the only thing that would make sense would be for them to begin garnering support and goodwill for him for the GE, would it not? The arrogance of it all, in addition to his paper-thin resume, is something that has continued to give pause about their "messiah"... As a loyal Democrat, I would support Obama in the end, without any illusions about the final outcome in the Fall.

Tammy, were you complaining when H was the inevitable one, way back before a single vote was cast? At least Obama's actually ahead here, with not a lot of votes left to cast. It's not crazy to view him as inevitable, objectively speaking.

And yeah, there is a lot of Obama love and Hillary hate in these parts. I, natch, see it all as completely merit-based, because I agree with it. And I can see why it would peeve you: I was peeved when TNR endorsed Joe Effing Lieberman way back when, but I'm ok with people disagreeing with me as long as they can put one foot in front of the other, rational argumentwise. And I don't expect anyone to be "unbiased" - anyone with a brain uses that brain to form an opinion, or else what's the point?

I don't mind the voicing of opinions, but when it is presented as unbiased analysis  that's when I get annoyed. Whether it's Fox News, MSNBC, TNR, or the Huffington Post I find the subjective harvesting of facts and then presenting them as the truth as lame and intellectually dishonest. I guess it's a dispiritng victory of sorts that we can match the conservative yes men of O'Reilly and Limbaugh with the liberal yes men of Olbermann and Huffington, I just think TNR is better than that. Just imagine if Clinton or McCain had the rough equivalent of a Wright, a comatose debate performance, and the 'clinging' remark. TNR would rightfully have torn them limb from limb. Seriously, if either Clinton or McCain's personal pastor had made repeated references to blacks being the cause of America's ills they would both had been drummed out of the race already.  But everyone rationalizes this stuff away, because Obama's  'our guy.' When Obama first ran for state senate, his lawyers challenged the petitions of all his opponents and got them knocked off the ballot. If that had been McCain of Clinton, TNR would have done a cover story on their  anti-democratic tactics. But because he's 'our guy' we give it a pass. I'm sure when Bush ran for president TNR hammered him on the inexperience issue because he'd only been the governor of a weak executive state for six years. Now 'our guy' is just 40 months out of the STATE senate and it's no big thing.

Just remember that next time you're working yourself into a self-righteous lather about the hypocrisy of another candidate, another ideology, or another media outlet.

I'll say it again: A few weeks ago Hillary had a 19-point lead in PA. Since then, as even the Obama haters concede, Obama has had to deal with one bad story after another as peter1943 spells out - Wright, the Worst Thing Ever Said ("bitter"), Ayers, a "comotose" debate performance.

So how on earth can Clinton not win by 19 points next week? How on earth can she lose support after the pounding Obama has taken? Nineteen - that's the benchmark. Anything less is a failure for HRC.

And again with calling Obama supporters "the natives." That's so provocative, peter.

Tammy,

I hope you don't leave the site. But the flaw in your logic is this: Since you signed up in early March, Obama HAS BEEN the INEVITABLE nominee. If your computer has a calculator, I encourage you to run the numbers.

And if you follow through on your veiled threat to abandon the Dems and possibly vote for McCain because some dude on the Web called you a Hillarista (honestly: insulting? Really??), all I can say is: I hope you love war and death, and I hope you don't want the right to choice, or any sensible health care, or a healthy economy. Cast your ballot as you will.

My guess is that Hillary's victory will be somewhere in the mushy middle. Ten or eleven points. Not enough to be considered close but not enough to be a blow-out. And the race will continue as it has for the last two months -- with Obama in the lead and Hillary, ironically, holding onto "hope."

dshungu:

Vanderhei and Harris make one huge error that completely undercuts the validity of their argument. They note that Hillary got some "rough" treatment from Russert back in the fall of 07, but the comparison stops there. The fact is that the questions asked at the Wednesday debate were about issues that had been receiving MASSIVE media coverage for weeks -- Rev. Wright and "bitter." These were issues that had already been addressed by Obama's campaign repeatedly. That was not the case with any of the issues that Hillary had to deal with on Russert. So the idea that he's getting some kind of free ride is just, well, a fairy tale.

"folks are sick of this contest -- especially the sniping over non-issue issues"

Amen.  

All, I never claimed I would support McCain.  I have been doing my research (on policy and votes) so I can roll with Obama if he gets the nod.  My compliants are about the narrative, about how additional wins by Hillary are seen as a nuisance and what that spin means to voters, etc.  And no, I don't believe he is inevitable... even at this late stage and the so-called math.  If true, the party elete would have called it already.  Someone blogged here a bit ago and others have said that as long as the race can be won via super Ds, its still on.  So the Obama inevitability narrative is flawed.

Sure, Obama has had a few bad weeks, but it's well-known that he has benefitted all season from a favorable media bias (see the article at politico).  And he is out-spending Hillary three to one in PA.  So, with major communications outlets defending him (the politico article points out that since the abc debate, major media institutions have come to Obama's defense unlike any candidate before)   I'm not surprised he's doing as well as he is in my keystone state.  

I actually like writing this this with you all, but when the blogs here turn Yahoo-like or Cnn-like, I get discouraged.  Maybe I should toughen up, but I too like to take the high road as much as possible.  

peter1943, the problem with your complaint is that it is only 1/2 true.  That is, if the various criticisms you make of Obama--all valid up to a point--were in a vacuum, then that would be fine.  But consider

1 - You need a horse to beat a horse.

Obama was not my first choice, or even my second.  But he's the guy now, so yes, I'll magnifiy his positives and downplay his negatives.  He is at present the only credible vehicle for restoring decency to the executive branch.

2 - Compared to whom?

Sure, Obama's time in national office has been short, while W was inexperienced in crucial ways.  But W was, and is, an idiot.  A great many commented on that at the time (remember the "yeah, but he has great advisors" line?).  Obama, whatever his faults, is not an idiot.

3 - Compared to whom, part two.

Sorry, but I find HRC's minuses significantly greater than BHO's, poor debate performance or not.  I won't list them here, but I like to believe that I am at least trying to be objective about it.

4 - Not just minues, but pluses.

Obama has certain gifts.  Again, I won't list them--plenty of time has already been devoted to that subject.  They don't make him God, but the "he's so phony" stuff strikes me as just as subjective as "Obama is the new RFK" (who was hardly perfect, either).

5 - Actually, I think TNR *has* on the whole been pretty critical of Obama's last debate performance.  Problem is, the defining aspect of that debate (if it deserves the term) was the fifty-two minutes spent on flag pins, etc.  Frankly, I detest HRC, but even I think that it was time to give Tuzla a rest.  Had that fity-two minutes been fifteen, which is all that that stuff deserved, and if Obama had then turned in a poor performance, I have no doubt that would have been the dominant post-debate discussion, at TNR and elsewhere.

6 - TNR has devoted entire articles to Obama criticism by Sean Wilentz and John Judis.  Yep, both Wilentz and Judis have been attacked for it.  So what?  Obama is not supposed to have defenders?

7 - The distinction between "everything wrong in this country is due to white people" and "everything wrong in this country is due to black people" is sufficiently obvious that even Mike Huckabee figured it out.  Both are indefensible--=and Obama said so--but the former has, well, a certain context.

So bring on those Obama criticisms, by all means.  But don't accuse Obama supporters of hypocrisy because we are insufficiently cynical, and don't think we haven't considered Obama's potential down side.  I know I have.

Tammya, I like having you here, so I hope you don't leave. But you know what would happen if the elites called the race now. it's happening even with them talking about doing so on June 3. Hillary's campaign is talking about how they are not letting people vote, don't believe in democracy, etc.

They'd be doing it on June 2, and probably would do it on Agust 8 (the delegates aren't really pledged, and their voices should be heard, etc.).

There's no way for superdelegates to exercise their judgement or ratify the will of the people in a way that is bad for Hillary without her doing her best to claim they're being undemocratic. I imagine the SDs want to give her every opportunity before they end it. It won't make HIllary's response any more rational or constructive, but it will make it less plausible.

I think what you and some others miss about some of us is that we aren't Obama cultists (speaking of insulting terms for supporters). At the beginning of the process, I was assuming that HIllary was going to be the nominee and I was fine with it. My antipathy for HIllary (and the requisite support for Obama) emerged as a function of the behavior of the HIllary campaign. I don't think I am alone in this.

The Official Primary ended when Texas and Ohio didn't deliver the delegates Clinton needed to have a chance in the last dozen contests. When she was left with winning 60%+ in all of the remaining states? Yeah, it was over for Hillary. But that was only the Official Primary!

Yes, her bigger money in February and March and the Obama cash machine was impossible to ignore and the Primary Industry, Inc. couldn't afford to refuse all that money.  As I've written, it would be like turning away World Series if MLB decided to add an extra game that would not count. Nor to teams quit showing up to play when they have no chance of making their sports playoffs. Beer, hot dogs and shirts are sold and owners are happy to field a loser as long as the money is flowing.

But it may get interesting as late polls show a dead heat & we could see the last few states lose out on the windfall. A win by Barack may not chase her out but I think her cash will dry up.  We'll see how interesting she is when she has no money to grease her way.

Sorry to sound so jaded but the only spin since March has been her ability to purchase interest with cold, hard cash. Actually that's not the whole truth because Obama's big money was what kept the Primary Industry, Inc in business. This will end when she goes broke and he can keep his money under the mattress.

Spin that?

Hillary showed no class in the last debate, but to say that Obama had not been getting a free ride until the Wright story broke is laughable. Hillary is also clearly out of money. Obama is outspending her on television ads at least 10 to 1. So, if Hillary wins by double digits, it would prove to me that Obama is unelectable. That does not mean that I believe Hillary is.

Miceelf.  I see your points, but I simply don't believe the party leaders are "allowing" Hillary to stay for the democracy reason only.  I think there is plenty of sentiment that she could and should be the nominee.  Now I know lots of people here hope that doesn't happen and will call me ridiculous.  Many here have, as I said, already called the race and did so a long time ago-- before Texas and Ohio.  Texas and Ohio was part of the Obama inevitability narrative-- that Hillary winning those states just prolonged the agony.  I'm sure voters in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and the remaining states set to vote, really appreciate that.  Not!

As I have said, as long as either one of the three indicators of success (pledged delagates, states won, and popular vote) can be turned around or leveled, the contest should continue.  I submit to people here that this race is still- after all the money and media-- almost equally divided.

You've been fun to debate with Miceelf, as have a few others here.  I very much appreciate the respect.  Maybe I'll stay around just for you.  (smile).  

The significance of Obama outspending Clinton by large (huge) amounts is overestimated. Clinton's campaign has plenty of money, and access to more when needed, to mount a successful campaign despite the difference. Careful budgeting and smart placement and timing of creative ads can overcome even a colossal disparity. Having more money can a be bad thing for a candidate, too. Strategy counts way more than money. The candidate who spends more money but doesn't spend it effectively and efficiently often loses. Voters can be turned off as easily as on by misjudging the message, or having a less compelling message.

BHLnyc  said:

"Vanderhei and Harris make one huge error that completely undercuts the validity of their argument. They note that Hillary got some "rough" treatment from Russert back in the fall of 07, but the comparison stops there. The fact is that the questions asked at the Wednesday debate were about issues that had been receiving MASSIVE media coverage for weeks -- Rev. Wright and "bitter." These were issues that had already been addressed by Obama's campaign repeatedly. That was not the case with any of the issues that Hillary had to deal with on Russert. So the idea that he's getting some kind of free ride is just, well, a fairy tale."

Typical of a kool-aid drinker: Try to parse even the unparse-able!  John and Jim were  wrong simply because they did not state things in a way that  you felt  would be the right comparison [read: favorable to Obama], but the funny thing is that the stuff that people keep asking Hillary about has been thrown at her for at least 15 years! See how silly this sort of parsing is? John and Jim were in error in the same way that Charlie and George were: They dared to challenge the "messiah."

For me, the telling part was just how bad Obama looked [a deer caught in headlights came to mind] when he was finally given the treatment that Hillary has received repeatedly [even on Wednesday] and had acquitted herself well. The Repubs won't be squeamish; they'll come at him full bore and he'd better be prepared. You "parsings" won't help me, and he won't be able to hide behind teleprompters and prepared remarks in the GE...

We have heard how awful ABC was on Wednesday, but I have heard little about how absolutely awful Obama was at handling those awful inquisitors and their awful questions. He seemed unable to put two sentences together, mangled many answers, etc. His performance was awful and times at  just hard to watch, and that is really what has irked his supporters. It showed him unprepared, badly lacking, and they could not deal with that loud cognitive dissonance, so they crucified those awful inquisitors instead... I think that Charlie and George took to Obama what most other "reporters" have been afraid to do precisely because of the sort of reaction that they got. I take my hat off to them and say: it was about time!

Inevitability:

There is a rather large difference between the narrative of "inevitability" before the primaries have begun and at this late date.  At the outset, it is a prediction, at this point, Obama is a virtual certainty. There are 566 delegates left to choose.  In order to come to the convention with a lead in pledged delegates, Hillary has to win 65% of them.  Yet, with 2,687 delegates chosen so far, the difference is Obama 52.7%, Hilliary 47.3%.  Even had Hillary's early poll margin in PA held up, which it has not, she still would not have overcome the difference.

"So what?" ask the Hillaristas.  So this.  If Hillary had been able to conduct a campaign a la Huckabee, without trying to destroy the overwhelmingly likely nominee of the party, then there would have been no strong argument against her continuing.  But she wasn't able to do that because the conventional wisdom was that she could not win unless she destroyed Obama's popularity and/or electability.  The moment she said in front of a TV camera and declared that both she and John McCain were ready to be commander in chief but Obama was not, she crossed the Rubicon into Joe Lieberman territory.  Hillary be damned.  She is working against the interests of the Democratic party for no better reason than to satisfy her own vanity -- and that of her core supporters.

Tammy thinks I condescend by pointing out that the leadership has allowed this to continue just so that Hillary cannot claim after the fact that she wasn't beaten but the race was called before the end by "the boys."  This isn't condescending.  It is a simple statement of reality, but one that is apparently embarrassing to Hillary supporters -- as it should be!  The party is humoring you merely to minimize the opportunity for internecine fighting that will hobble the party.  It is a pity that Hillary and her die-hard supporters have so little concern for the success of the party in November.

If the shoe were on the other foot and the roles were reverse, Hillary and her party regulars would be screaming for Obama's head and attacking him left, right and sidewise for continuing the race on the theory that he "might" somehow, but no one can plausibly argue just how, still capture the nomination.

So, let the farce go on.  The fact is that Hillary's attacks, while doing Obama no good for the general election, are failing and backfiring.  She only makes herself more unpopular with Democrats who, because of her behavior, are waking up to the fact that Hillary has no interest in the welfare of the party.  In my opinion, she never has.  It has never been anything but a vehicle for her personal ambitions, ambition born of proximity to power, not of any effort or achievement of her own in public life.

When PA and IN and NC are over, there will be only 217 delegates left to choose.  As the most likely outcome of those three races is currently a small net gain for Obama (but in any event only a very modest gain for Hillary), it will than be beyond obvious that Hillary cannot ever achieve the lead in pledged delegates.  I am confident that at that point the rest of the supers will declare and Obama will have a majority of all delegates.  

The argument by Hillaristas that the supers should not declare before all the primaries are over, but should then ignore the outcome of the voting, is self-serving and hypocritical in the extreme.  The theoretical purpose of the supers is to do what is best for the party as a whole.  It hardly makes sense to argue that the supers making their intentions known before every state has voted is undemocratic but overturning the will of the voters would be democratic.  Indeed, that is on its face absurd.  The stated purpose of the supers is to do what's best for the party.  After May 6, it will be clear that confirming Obama's nomination is in the best interests of the party.  But will Hillary and the Hillaristas quite graciously even then so that the party can turn its attentions to McCain?  Somehow I doubt it.

By the by, the outstanding feature of this race is that Hillary supporters routinely attack and disparage Obama's supporters.  dcshungu is among the most offensive of these.  It is acceptable for everyone to have opinions, even strong opinions, about the candidates.  That is what you sign up for when you get into politics.  But the attacks by Hillaristas on other Democrats is something new and reprehensible.  While I detect lots of exasperation on the party of Obama's supporters, I don't read much by them that attacks Hillaristas on the grounds that they are nuts to support Hillary.  Nuts to refuse to believe that the race isn't over, maybe.  But not for supporting Hillary as such.

Typical of this is the post above in which dc tells us that Obama supporters are  "irked" because of his performance at the last debate.  Utterly lame.  As if dcshungu has the foggiest idea what anyone else thinks, let alone someone who disagrees with him.

Obama's great gift, so completely lacking in Hillary Clinton, is to know how to comport himself IN ORDER TO SUCCEED POLITICALLY.  The net result of Hillary's behavior at the debate was for her to make herself even more repellent to the majority of Democrats.  So, by the only standard that counts in politics, Obama is the victor of the debate.   I am not irked at all at that outcome.  Why would I be?  

Why would any Obama supporter be?  Obama continues to gain, both leading into the PA debate and following the PA debate.  The great big 19% lead that Hillary once had in PA is all but gone.  Her lead in IN is all but gone.  His lead in NC is solid.  That means that after the next round of primaries, he will be further ahead, just as he was after the last round, and the round before that, and the round before that.

Irked?  Not a bit.  Just relieved that in a very, very short time, Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions will be completely dead and I won't have to look at her rictus grin again for a very long time.  Her 15 minutes is just about up.  And then we won't have to listen dscshungu and company either.  What a pleasant state of affairs that will be.

You sound like such a booster.  It's pathetic.  I'm not sure I can ever respect your opinion again, knowing how you twist it to match your own interests and wishes.

I can't belive I'm saying this, but ... Chris Matthews had his finger on the right spot when he said that "testing" Obama by giving him the Republican Smear Machine treatment - which we all claim to loathe so much, but you see, we're only testing him - gives the imprimatur of legitimacy to it, and therefore when the Republicans get around to it in the summer/fall, our party can't be heard to complain that this is foul and wrong because we did it ourselves. What can Clinton say - you know, when she's "doing everything she can" to help Obama win if he's the nominee, in response to people who are clobbering him with the same garbage she tried? "No, he's got enough experience, really!" "I know full well he's not a Muslim!"

The fact is, though, I think Obama's right, and people - people who aren't just looking for Clinton to win at all costs - recognize that this is garbage, and it makes them think less of HER, because she really does revel in it. She's undermining her own credibility, and will be in no position to help him at all, truthfully, without recanting everything she's ever said. And I don't see her doing that. We'll just have to win this without her. But hopefully not without Tammy. We like Tammy!

And peter, speaking for myself, I don't work myself into a lather about hypocricy - I think that it's b.s. when it's done to anyone - this flag pin crap would be foul if they did it to her too. I'll even let you have the "free ride" argument because I really don't care. Measuring out who is the bigger victim of the press, cummulatively or in a particular time period, has no bearing to me on who should be president, or even if/when/how/who in the press is a total jackass.

In a month and a half, all of this will be over. I sent my absentee ballot in for Obama in Pa. yesterday, but as it is coming out of Mexico probably won't arrive until November. Hah. As a Pa. voter I have never whined that the state was so late, I never had a chance to choose a candidate where my vote mattered. I wanted Edwards in 2004 and Bradley in 2000. I am also well aware that my one vote would not have made any difference. The only way it would have is if the floor utterly dropped out for Gore and Kerry. It didn't, and is unlikely to be the same for Obama.

Please Hillary supporters, stop screaming about my rights, no one has ever done it before, let me say I find your efforts insincere. By the way, the votes counted then, all of the names were on the ballot, it would have been the same this time, there was no voter nullification scheme in Pa. then or now.

Let me add I do feel sympathy for Hillary supporters here, I have not picked a winner in the primaries for a very long time, but this time both candidates that I like from each party, McCain and Obama, are or have won. So based on my own experience of losing my advice is don't get your hopes up if Hill wins Pa. It will just be a respite. And life, as they say, will go on even if Hillary is not the nominee. America will survive 8 years of Bush, it will survive Obama or McCain. Don't be like dcshungu and take all of this so utterly personal. Poor guys blood pressure must be through the roof.

psantillana, Hillary's unfavorability rating is now 53%. No party has ever nominated anyone who had such bad ratings (renominate, yeah, but not nominate). It is like before the game already has started she is down 10 points. I honestly can't understand the certitude of people who can look at that number but still insist she is the best candidate. Honestly, I would have a lot more respect if the anit-Obama people started talking about a draft Gore movement. But to continue to insist the best option is to hitch our wagon to the lame nag that is Hillary is just too much.

It seems such people think "I like Hillary, therefore other people must, just must like Hillary too, and if I just jump up long enough, and shriek loud enough, everyone will listen to me and know that I am right."

I like Obama, but if McCain is elected then he is elected. I won't delude myself by magical thinking. But since Obama has an unfavorability rating of just 32% I will take my chances with him. And I know his will go up, but at least he and McCain will be starting on a level playing field (and with the high negatives attached to Republicans, he is actually starting out ahead)

It is all too clear to me now.  Teplukin's beef is less with Obama supporters here and elsewhere than with CanWest whose bean counters have thrown the TNR Talkback baby out with the bathwater.  For those of you newly arrived, once upon a time--prior to Oct 2006--discussion boards with similar functionality to this one (better actually, HTML prompts being enabled) were open after every article on TNRD.  

Said boards allowed for immediate upload which facilitated a stimulating back and forth and they were limited to subscribers which kept the trolls at bay.  Tep's main problem is that that old-school Talkback community has been relegated to these blogs, and that the scope of these blogs is, by definition, limited.

You know what, tep?  I'm totally with you.  The Stump is a drag.  But not because Crowley and Scheiber are in thrall to Barack Obama, but because The Stump is focussed by intention on an election that has itself become a drag.  Too bad for us that because of the state of affairs with the feature articles, there's no where else for us to go other than away completely.

I've given up on Foer being able to fix this.  It's over his head.  There's some business rationale for it to be the way it is.  I suspect it has to do with revenue from web advertising.  If CanWest can show that 500 nonsubscribers have paid enough attention to an online article to write a response, it boosts the amount they can charge for a banner ad.

So suck it up or unsubscribe.  Talkback is what it is.  Depressing, to be sure, but that's capitalism for you; the market weeds out the inefficiencies, but then the inefficiencies are sometimes the most interesting, humane little backwaters out there.

I know the environment is not your pet set of issues, but I do see the new Energy and Environment blog as TNR's attempt to throw guys like you and me a bone.  Give it a chance.  

Why did TNR disable the HTML functionality, that I'd love to know.  All it did was enable us to add some emphasis and a sharper tonal/visual profile to our comments.  It pisses me off.

Tammy,

Quick question, you mention how BHO is outspending HRC in PA considerably, isn't that because his supporters are sending him more money in support? The election does not have a spending cap and I find it amusing that a popular winning candidate who is heavily supported monetarily is criticized for spending the money on his campaign. effectively.

What should he do with the money that keeps pouring in every month from my fellow cult-members?

Peace

Concerning the treatment from the media.  I find it interesting that both candidates struggled with this form of questioning (as most humans would with the current interest in gotcha journalism).

The difference is how they handle it after the fact.  BHO comes out with a speech acknowledging what happened as "politics as usual" and dusts his shoulders off ready to move on.  HRC cries and says that this is really hard.

I find BHO's strategy politically brilliant, he is attacked and the attacks allow him to get back to his core message which makes future attacks less powerful.

Peace

The problem the last debate created for Obama is that it validated Wright, flag pins, Ayers, as wellas his personal trustworthiness as issues against him. The values have to do with how Obama FEELS about Wright, flag pins, and Ayers--not with an intellectual stance or rationale or dismissal, but simply with how he is seen to feel about these isses.

The trustworthiness issue arises because of Obama's constant fibbing and convenient excuses and explanations. This is the unstated assumption that lay behind many of the questions at the debate--that he is very casual with his excuses and explanations. The MSM have begun to call him on (e.g., Halperin taking him to task in Time and online for saying that his campaign had discussed Tuszla only when the media asked about it, when in fact his campaign had aggessively pushed the story). David Ignatius in the WashPo today raises similar questions about Obama's version of his dealings with Rezko. US News similarly covers his unbeleievable story about not being responsible for a questionaire that his own handwriting is on and that he was interviewed for twice. The meme is now out there: Obama fibs.

The meme speaks:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../mccain-camp-calls-obama-recklessly-dishonest

Hey, pccostello, who are you going to vote for in November?  

The Democratic "fibber" or the Republican?  Or will you thumb your nose at all us cultists and pull the lever for Nader?

The meme speaks again (3 or 4 times, if you read down a few):

marcambinder.theatlantic.com

And yet one more time, the meme speaks (from the Columbia Journalism Review):

www.cjr.org/.../obamas_lobbyist_line.php

Of course, Greg.  I have no problem at all with the amount of money Obama is raising.  It does indicate what you claim.  My point was that if he can't deliver a knock out blow in PA with all that money and with the media constantly praising and defending him, then he is a waeker candidate than we might think.  I'm in the PA advertising market.  I can't turn on my radio or TV without hearing or seeing his voice.  He is everywhere!  

There is another issue here for me.  I suspect that this primary season has now seriously undercut the spirit of campaign finance reform because each of these candidates has now campaigned so long (and neglected their senate jobs) and has spent so much money.  Can we stop to consider that it will take the democratic party more than 300 million dollars just to decide a nominee.  Who knows what the GE will cost.  Doesn't this run against the idea of reform?  Bteween the parties, it's likely to be close to a billion dollars to elect a president.   Sure, the candidates raised a lot of cash via small donations from the public, but maybe we should ask ourselves what would have been different if each candidate had 75 million to spend?  I'm a bit disappointed that Obama seems to be going back on his word to operate on public funds in the general.  And no, I don't buy that massive amounts of small donors satisfies this criteria.  The point is an equal amount of cash.

The earlier post here about the "primary industry" got me thinking a lot.  At this rate, it wouldn't be hard to guess that our next president woudl likely start campaigning -- publicly-- for re-election shortly after taking office.  

Gotta tell ya, one of the things that makes Obama hard for me is that he basically stopped his senate work early into his first term so that he could run for president.  He really has only a few months of federal experience.  I would hope this would not happen if he were elected president.  I want him working to bring about the so-called change he espouses.  I don't want most of his work to be campaign re-election rallies.  Fair enough?

BTW, Panst, Woody, Tim: thanks for support.  

And this time the meme speaks from the Chicago Tribune:

www.chicagotribune.com/.../chi-michelle-obama_side_bdapr20,0,6411442.story

The meme makes an appearance (one of many) at politico.com:

www.politico.com/.../9722.html

What's a "meme?"  And how does a meme speak?

for meme, see this chapter in which Richard Dawkins originated the term:

www.rubinghscience.org/.../dawkinsmemes.html

Obama's fibibng memed again:

nymag.com/.../bittergate_pundits_doubt_obama_as_never_before.html

oops--last link is to meme of obama's values difficulties, not his fibbing.

The following link is the fibbing meme expressed perfectly--in this case John Dickerson in Slate yesterday saying that he wants to stand behind Obama when he speaks to see if he is crossing his fingers:

www.slate.com/.../2189485

Tammy,

Campaign finance reform is tough for me, how do you monetize 8 years as the first lady in establishing name recognition?  It is crazy that we spend $1 billion dollars to elect a person for a $200,000 a year job, however little known candidates would be severely hampered if you put a limit on fundraising.  Tough nut to crack.

pccos,

If you can state how HRC is the integrity candidate in this election you may have a point.  Unfortunately HRC's lies are easily documented and recorded for posterity's sake.  You would have more credibility if you were acknowledging your preferred candidates failures in this area as well.

Peace

Ok, pc, I've checked out your links, and as usual you're grasping at straws.  

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../mccain-camp-calls-obama-recklessly-dishonest

-> This story reports that the McCain campaign is complaining that Obama is taking a statement McCain made about the rosy state of the American economy out of context.  Hmmm.  For most of 2006, the big dig on Obama around these parts was that he could neither dish it out nor take it.  Seems to me we should take the whiney complaints of the man's chief political rival with a grain of salt.

marcambinder.theatlantic.com

-> Here we are again. The post I assume you're referring to here reproduces a Howard Wolfson mailer complaining that Obama's going negative on Clinton in PA.  Boo hoo.

www.cjr.org/.../obamas_lobbyist_line.php

-> Here the writers fall short of calling Obama's "no money from lobbyists line" false, and they show that he does get far less money from lobbyists than either McCain or Clinton.  Mostly they just say the line doesn't have much content since lobbyists don't tend to give much to anyone's presidential campaign.  But they also acknowledge that it's smart politics for Obama to play it the way he does.

www.chicagotribune.com/.../chi-michelle-obama_side_bdapr20,0,6411442.story

-> Here the writer simply says he can't be sure how broke the Obama's really were in the early 90s.  Not that they've ever said they were poor, merely that they were in debt.  But if it makes you feel good and if you don't think this is the sort of fluff that gets written about every presidential candidate every time then read away.

www.politico.com/.../9722.html

-> This one's about Obama, gun control, and the 2nd Amendment, contrasting his recent statements of support for the right to bear arms with prior contributions to organizations that promote handgun control.  Well, I hate to break it to you, but it is perfectly consistent intellectually to support the continued availability of long arms such as used for hunting while working for a handgun ban.  In fact this is precisely the position I hold viz a vie firearms.  And if this is in fact Obama's position--we don't know that it is--can you blame him for declining to qualify his support for the traditions of hunting with a reminder that he'd like to ban handguns?

You really need to find another hobby, pccostello.

nymag.com/.../bittergate_pundits_doubt_obama_as_never_before.html

->  Too bad for your woman Clinton that the entire pundit constituency wouldn't fill a single American Legion Hall.

this one ties the fibbing to the raising of money:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008041004045.html

aeor--

You really don't get the point. All of these links are themed by the idea that Obama fibs and is deceptive. My point is that the idea itself is now all over the place. The fact that you can quarrel with the details of the arguments made in individual pieces, or quote merely from the "balancing" part of the piece that is more favorable to Obama is completely irrelevant to the point.

This is why Obamaites are so completely crazed over the ABC debate--it was a massive validation of the values and dishonesty issues about Obama. There is no way back on this stuff.

Try to stay alert in class, and take copious notes if you have to.

No, pccostello, I DO get your point.  The point you don't seem to get is that none of your links proves or even supposes a level of deceptiveness anything more than what everyone expects from ANY candidate for public office.

"Try to stay alert in class, and take copious notes if you have to."

And fuck you too.

Get back to me when you've got an independent voice with an actual readership putting together a dossier of "Obama's fabrications."  

Right now all you've got are statements from the rival campaigns and second tier journos who think they can fill some space by teasing out any slight inconsistencies or ambiguities in the rhetoric.  This is nothing other than the treatment any presumptive nominee can expect.  The "meme" it best evidences is the Clinton-is-finished-Obama's-the-nominee meme.

pc, you really are scraping the very bottom of the barrel.  People who oppose Obama say critical things about him and they become the truth for that reason alone, just because they are all "linked" in some mysterious way that is evident only to the conspiracy crackpots?

The colossal, whopping, enormous lies of Hillary of Tuzla are there for all to see.  Humiliating, isn't it?

Obamaites are only "crazed" about the PA debate in your perfervid imagination.  Since it is now self-evidently hopelessly pathetic to claim that Hillary might still claim the nomination, even you don't reallly bother.  Instead, you have taken to trying to make some sort of absurd point about the emotional life of Obama's supporters.  Read the polls pccostello.  Despite what you insist was a terrible disaster for Obama, he continues to widen his lead over Hillarious.  The definition of success in electoral politics is winning, pc, not have supporters like you who try to spin dross into something slightly less than dross.  Obama wins.   Hillary lose.  And then she whines about it, backed by a legion of whining supporters like you.  Your stuff is one giant stinking heap of ridiculous trash, pc. Nonsense.  Self-parody.

Stay awake and take good notes right now pc:  

Hillary Clinton's ambitions to be president are finished, now and forever.  She is over and done.  Barack Hussein Obama, first-term senator, has taken her vast name-recognition, her huge head-start, her "35 years of experience,"  her "tested, vetted, ready Day 1," her "I have crossed the commander-in-chief threshold" (I'm still trying to find out where they keep that threshold.  Is it in the Pentagon"  Do they take it out for ceremonial occasions?), her victim shtick, and her race-baiting and beaten her and them all to a pulp.  They are now on the trash-heap of history, just like Hillary Clinton.  They will barely be remembered 10 years from now except as an obscure footnote to the Clinton administration.  Bill Clinton was president.  Hillary baked cookies.

aeromonas

PCC is the JK of Talkback: take statements out of context, and cry "misogyny" or whatever whenever she is challenged.  Interestingly enough, every time she says "you don't get the point", it reminds me of the Marxist or Radical Feminist "false consciousness" position: she and only she understands, and the rest of us do not get the point, do not understand, etc.  

PCC: someone commented on another thread that you seem never to have anything positive to say about Ms. Rodham - oops, she had to become Mrs. Clinton to help her husband win the Presidency - only bad things about her opponent.  Even if all you say about Mr. Obama is true, it says nothing whatever as to why one ought to vote for Ms. Rod- - dang, I keep doing it - Mrs. Clinton.  And if the best argument you have is, "there are two candidates only and so you have NO OTHER choice than to vote for my candidate, SUCKERS", then I have to say it is a sad, sad moment for your candidate and for the Democratic Party.

One more thing: a "meme", like an infection or parasite, needs a vector to spread; what does it say about you that you have appointed yourself as the vector of a disease originating from anti-Choice, pro-War McCain?

Aero,

I have always found you unpleasant to talk with, and your vulgar response confirms this experience. So why don't we just ignore each other from now on?

But you should recognize that when John Dickerson in Slate writes in his lead paragraph that he wants to stand behind Barack Obama at his next whistlestop to see if he is crossing his fingers behind his back while he is speaking, something very important has changed.

Here are the first two paragraphs. of Dickerson yesterday The rest gets worse for Obama:

Barack Track

Riding the rails with Sen. Obama in Pennsylvania.

By John Dickerson

Posted Saturday, April 19, 2008, at 2:26 PM ET

DOWNINGTON, Pa.— At the next train stop, I'm going to stand behind Senator Obama when he speaks. When he's decrying the trivial distractions in politics, I think he may be crossing his fingers behind his back.

As the Senator's campaign train wound from one speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics to the next speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics, his campaign hosted a conference call to engage in the practice the candidate was busy denouncing. I suppose it would have been an even greater act of chutzpah for the Obama campaign to host the conference call while Sen. Obama was denouncing that kind of behavior, but not much more of one.

gregs,

my point is only about the perception and "brand" of obama. my point is simply that since the abc debate that there has been a major qualitative shift in the perception of obama. the debate questions acted to validate as serious and respectable the issues that the questions were about. this is why obamalites are ballistic--they feel the damage done. This is very clearly showing up in media coverage (and in the Galllup poll, perhaps).

Roi: PCC reminds me of Glenda Jackson in the last scene of "The Music Lovers"; tied up in a straight-jacket in a padded cell, screaming, "They love her, they love her" ...

Having injected some life into this moribund blog and the echo chamber that TNR has become, I am going to take some more refreshing days away. Talk amongst yourselves until I return. (smile)

One of TNR's more egregious editorial failings is not having some aggressive pro-Clinton paid bloggers on The Plank & The Stump. Crowley comes closest to balance, but reading Chait, Zengerle, Scheiber, and even the decent-minded Chris Orr reminds me of reading my college newspaper decades ago. The lefty-left doesn't like brisk dissent; it likes hegemony, and Obama has induced an almost unbelievable degree of hauteur and vituperativeness in his followers. Editors could do something interesting under those condidtions, but TNR and Foer have chosen not to.

PCC: re your latest post - the difference between Obama and Ms. Rodham is that Obama might well cross his fingers, while Ms. Rodham simply assumes that her listeners are stupid and will buy whatever nonsense she spouts.

goodbye pc.  Have a nice trip.  Perhaps by the time you come back, there will be not even a reason to imagine a role for "pro-Clinton" paid bloggers as Clinton will have been publicly and completely eliminated from the race.  

Pc exits saying:  "Something very important has changed."

Something very important has indeed changed.  It is that, with her leads in PA and IN fading to zero, Hillarious's chances are now so dim that even the pccostellos cannot any longer claim that she has a chance without inviting the ridicule of everyone.  What is emerging in its place is the sort of idiotic carping and sniping the underlying theme of which is, "We lost, all our predictions about what would happen were shown to be wrong, no one gives a goddamn about our point of view, but we are still right." In this undertaking, one blockhead insinuates something nasty and then some other blockhead takes that insinuation as evidence of the truth, no, not merely the truth, but of an entire mass movement toward their hopeless, tone-deaf, minority and shrinking position.  "Something has changed.  It may be late, but things are now turning our way"  Except that they are not turning their way.  "Things" continue to move in the exact opposite direction.

But, hey, a tight grip on reality was never a great strength of Hillarious either.

"the debate questions acted to validate as serious and respectable the issues that the questions were about".

Yeah, the flag pin issue is really "serious and respectable" now that Charles Gibson has asked it.  More important, to as a question about an accusation in a debate validates the veracity of the underlying accusation.

Baffling.

PC is right, you guys, something has changed.  I can't speak for him, but I don't think he's making any argument here about why Hillary should win - I think he's pointing out that Obama is starting to get the same treatment that Hillary has always gotten - and that Kerry got and Gore got.  It doesn't matter how well-argued or truthfull the meme is - its out there and its growing.  Obama's "truthfullness" has become an issue, as has his "elitism."  It doesn't matter if there's never a single clear example of him lying or being an elitist.  They will remain "troubling issues" and they'll be discussed day and night and many people will believe them.  Where there's smoke there's fire, right?  Sucks, doesn't it?

Psantillina argues way up above that Clinton gives the "imprimatur of legitimacy" to these frivolous and unfair attacks, which will make it harder for her to dispute them later.  I agree completely.  What he doesn't seem to see is that Obama has been doing the same thing all along whenever he makes use of the whole "Hillary is a bitch who will stop at nothing - including destroying the party - to win' meme.  What if he wasn't winning?  What if it went the other way and Hillary was just barely squeeking out a victory?  Would you be arguing that Obama is threatening the party by making such attacks?   Oh well, it doesn't matter now.  I'll do my part to help Obama win, but if he loses I can't help but feel like the Democrats will have gotten what they deserve for being such idiots.

The John Dickerson story is REALLY bad for Obama:

"Obama campaign aides scheduled the call to talk about Hillary Clinton's fantastical story about her breakneck race to shelter under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. [...]

At his first stop in Wynnewood, Obama was still basking in the glow of his event the night before in Philadelphia, where 35,000 people had come to see him. A few thousand stood in the bright sunshine by the train platform in the suburban hamlet, as Obama took the stage in shirtsleeves."

Incidentally, Slate has a wonderful "ad" denouncing The Boss's endorsement, elitism and bleak vision of America.

And this from RealClearPolitics, a new "inevitability"/entitlement argument:

"As Hillary Clinton's presidential odds lengthen, feminist supporters have begun arguing that she must be the vice presidential candidate if Barack Obama wins the presidential nomination."

newdex,

"Obama's "truthfullness" has become an issue, as has his "elitism."  It doesn't matter if there's never a single clear example of him lying or being an elitist."

By this logic no Democratic candidate can ever win, if there are no clear examples and only acusations of some issue that has some importance, what candidate could ever survive this type of rationale?

Is it better that HRC is a known documented liar?  BHO's response was perfect, this is just politics as usual, and he dusts his shoulders off and keeps on going.  So far he has been accused of being a secret Muslim and too Christian in the same month.  It is the kitchen sink strategy and yet he keeps rolling along and the attacks look more foolish each time.

BHO has way more restraint than I could ever muster.  If I were in his shoes Tuzla, HRC not paying her staff's health care and HRC skipping out on campaign bills would have been my talking points every day to show what a poor candidate HRC is and how she is a hypocrite.  

pc, I was "scratching my head" (no, it's not a meme) as to what the meme you refer to actually is. That you persistently assert Obama is a liar and a hypocrite neither makes it so, and, that you pull one news/blog item after another to show that others think so too (though few of your sources make that charge directly) *doesn't make it a meme.* You write, " All of these links are themed by the idea that Obama fibs and is deceptive. My point is that the idea itself is now all over the place." So it's really a theme you're mistaking for a meme. Now if, for example, "obama" were to become a synonym for "liar" then you'd have a meme. You could advance your cause if you started calling someone who was a known liar "an Obama." Or, petition to have Liars' Club changed to Obamas' Club. Who knows, you're name might be enshrined in the memetics hall of fame someday.

Now, as Hillary fades out, we're getting into the real weirdness -- Hillary "must be" the vp candidate.  That would be a surefire way to blow the general election.  Take a political loser with a 53% negative rating and put her on the ticket.

Similarly the Dickerson nonsense.  "Does anyone here know how to play this game?"

A campaign is about competing narratives.  He (or she) whose narrative wins, wins the game.  Hillary has many, many flaws as a candidate, but her biggest single liability was her narrative of "tested, vetted, ready Day 1, crossed the commander-in-chief threshold."  Why?  First, because it is patently untrue and is easily falsified.  It is one thing for something to be false.  Much worse is easily shown to be false.  Second, because "competence," even when there is some reason to believe it, is a proven loser in presidential campaigns.  Third, because this narrative is all about Hillary herself, not about the country, not about the voters.  The campaign is supposed to be about the American people, not about the wonderful qualities of the candidate.  It is a turn off for the majority of the people who don't have an ideological ax to grind (like the delusional feminists referred to above).

Almost as bad for Hillary was allowing herself to become the candidate of her "feminist" supporters, aided and abetted by her recurrent retreats to victimhood.  The American people expect the president to defend them, not to have to defend the president.  Another proven loser.  If Obama had allowed himself to be characterized as "the candidate of blacks," he would be similarly dead.  But, being a much more capable politician than Hillary, he has wisely taken great pains to avoid that.  And, to its everlasting credit, the African-American community has understood that it must not embrace him too tightly or they will sink him.  He must campaign to be the president of ALL Americans.  Hillary's "feminist supporters" (with supporters like these, who needs opponents) seem not to understand this.  Of course, by New Hampshire, Hillary was faced with a bit of a Hobson's choice.  It seems that only her summons to feminists and women of her own generation pulled it out of the fire for her in the short term.  But in the course of the whole campaign, Hillary's over-identification with feminists has helped to sink her.

As reported in the Times today, the super-delegates are progressively abandoning Hillary, alienated by her campaign.  This includes women politicians.  Remember, these women have succeeded in getting elected.  They know from hard-won experience what it takes to get elected.  The Clintons seem to think that they can bludgeon the supers into submission by having Chelsea call and plead or by publicly branding defectors as Judases.  This is, of course, totally counter-productive.  It is fascinating to watch power slip away from the Clintons as the political class comes to recognize that Obama is the power now, the nominee and perhaps the next president, someone to be reckoned with.  Hillary might have saved her career for a second act if she had the good sense to be gracious.  But she doesn't.  The recriminations only ensure that when this is over the party will be done with her.

Returning to my original point:  No campaign narrative is perfect and without logical flaws.  Pundits can pick them all apart, but the exercise is quite beside the point.   Once a candidate's narrative takes hold, the public rejects information that is inconsistent with the narrative.  Bush scraped into the White House,   with the necessary help of Antonin Scalia of course, with a narrative of "compassionate conservatism" and "restoring honor to the White House."  To any thoughtful observer, these were obvious frauds, as we have now learned to our collective regret.  Merely campaign narratives without even the barest intention to make them a reality.  It didn't matter.  What was Gore's narrative?  I don't remember.  I think it was something like "four more years," or to that effect.  Another form of the "competence" argument" that is a proven loser.  

So, all the latest carping and nit-picking about the lack of ideological purity in the Obama campaign, that Obama doesn't walk on water, and blah, blah, blah is destined to be of zero effect.  In the general election, Obama has two tasks to master.  The first is to have truthy responses, that do not offer vulnerable details, to questions about what the will do about Iraq and the economy -- with backup for generals and economists as surrogates to assure the public of the soundness of Obama's thinking.  Second, he has to be ready for the Swift-boating when it comes.  And it surely will come.  At a small dinner for Democrats Abroad about a year ago, Howard Dean assured us that the party had learned its lesson about Swift Boating and would be prepared to strike back, hard.  I hope Obama and the party are ready with surrogates who can eat McCain's liver when the Swift Boating begins -- counterpunching in the way that neither McCain nor Kerry did when they were the targets.  And I Obama knows that this must be left to high-profile surrogates while he, the candidate, continues to smile and brush it off.

Given the war, the economy, McCain's dotage, and the fact that the normal cycle is 8 years of one party followed by eight years of the other party, if Obama but does these two things successfully, he will stroll into the White House.  Oh, and one more thing.   He had better be sure not to put Hillary on the ticket.

gregstolhand:

"By this logic no Democratic candidate can ever win."

Bingo.  

"HRC is a known documented liar"  

In spite of your confidence, you really don't know why Hillary said what she said about Tuzla.  But in order to assume that she purposely lied, you also have to assume that she's too stupid to realize she'd be found out.  At any rate, by that kind of standard, Obama's responses to the NAFTA-Canada flap, as well as his initial responses to the Good Reverend could easily qualify him as a "known documented liar" too.  But then, I don't think you can find a politician on this entire planet who couldn't be described as a "known documented liar."    Its just that, for some reason, some politician's lies - no matter how trivial - seem to matter a lot more than others.  And by that, I'm not talking about Hillary vs. Obama so much as Any Democrat vs. Any Republican.  

newdex, the only thing that is changing is the economy is getting even worse (and Sadr is one step away from stepping over the brink in Iraq). Yeah, just keep telling yourself that Americans will be happy to pay over $4 a gallon for gas, watch the wealthy get even more tax breaks, and the war drag out for at least 4 more years because a politician (Obama) has started acting like a politician.

McCain's only chance is to run like a conservative Democrat. You know the Republicans are running terrified to have nominated the guy who was offered the Democratic parties VP slot in 2004.

roiduboloi, I agree with most of what you say above, except when you talk about Bush's narrative defeating Gore's I think you leave out one very important fact: the press really didn't try to pick holes in Bush's narrative because they were far too busy writing thier own narrative of Gore as a big, lying phony with identity issues.  

That's the thing - the competition of narratives in that race or any isn't a matter of the public choosing which one they like better.  Its a matter of which one is seen as true, and the press has a huge role in determining that.  And that's why the Obama as fibber/elitist "meme" is scary.  Its the first completely unsurprising indication that the press is getting ready to pound Obama's narrative.  Will they pound McCain's equally?  That remains to be seen, but if things unfold the way the last two elections did, we're in trouble.  

Tomeg: I'm not sure you understand what a "meme" is.  Its simply an idea that spreads and "replicates."  In this case, that Obama is a liar.  A person doesn't have to actually say "Obama is a liar" to spread it, though.  You can just say "some people think Obama is a liar" too.  

Blackton, I don't pretend to know how the election is going to turn out.  I'm only pretending to know how Obama's going to be treated by the press.  I hope you're right, but I wouldn't bet a substantial sum of money on it.  

Newdex,

I know HRC mentioned Tuzla 4 times AND AFTER questions arose about the veracity of her claim.  I do believe she is delusional in this age to think that she could get away with a major fabrication that provides limited to no value other than to her vision of being "ready on day 1"

This is no half-truth this is no-truth. I can stomach half-truths.

newdex,

I respectfully disagree.  I think that while the participates in the play of the game, they tend to respond to public opinion rather than lead it.  They throw some things out there, but when the public accepts a narrative, the press is remarkably docile in facilitating that.  In other words, they went after Gore because he had no narrative that the public found compelling.  Not the other way around.

And "truth" has little to do with it.  "Truthiness" is all.  It is, however, one of the cultural rules of the game that you do not say things that are readily falsified.  That makes you a chump player.  The public accepts a certain amount of guile from politicians.  It does not accept saying things that are completely falsified by a videotape.  The public also wants to know that when you tell a political "lie" you know how to do it.  How to leave a line of retreat and how not to exceed the unwritten boundaries.  Hillary of Tuzla was way over the line.  

Also, it is not a good idea to talk about "I" as the subject of your statements.  Gore was vulnerable on the internet business not because he wasn't telling the truth -- he was -- but because claims about how good you are are unwelcome.  The public wants elections to be about them, not about you.  Hillary lost twice on Tuzla because it was about her and it was readily falsified.  Gore was ribbed about the internet because it was about him and could be easily twisted to appear false.  Either way, a self-inflicted rhetorical wound.

You basically have a situation where both major political parties have already selected their nominees. The Republicans have selected John McCain and the Democrats have selected Barack Obama.

The other Republican candidates, putting the interest of their party ahead of personal ambition, chose to concede to the frontrunner even before he had locked up the final delegates (Romney is an example) so that McCain could consolidate his base and gear up for victory in November.

Where they did not concede before victory for McCain was assured (in the case of Mike Huckabee) the candidate had enough character to avoid using smear tactics that would seriously damage the front runner.

By way of contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton machine exhibit typical baby-boomer behavior of narcissism and self-indulgence. If they don’t get their way they want to make sure the Democrats will not be able to win in November. The Clintonian motto is this: “It is all about ME.”

They exhibit the worst characteristics of generational dysfunction, with the predictable results.

roidubouloi  gave an excellent analysis on narratives and campaigns, just above.

Roi:

"Gore was vulnerable on the internet business not because he wasn't telling the truth -- he was -- but because claims about how good you are are unwelcome."  

First, Gore's statement was PART of his response to the question "what accomplishments in the Senate are you most proud of?"  I don't know how you could answer a question like that without discussing yourself.  

Second, how can you be sure that the public "accepted" the Gore-is-a-liar narrative as opposed to

being "sold" it?  What signal did the public give to the media in the early days of the campaign?  The fact that he remained ahead in the polls?  The fact that they failed to take to the streets in protest?  "Invented the internet" was just one of a whole slew of smears on Gore's character that were continuously and almost universally pushed in the press from the very beginning of the campaign.  VERY few people knew, at the time, that he hadn't really claimed to have "invented" the internet.  Would the public have "accepted" the lying narrative if it had been widely known that most of the claims about him lying were themselves lies?  

In the end, in spite of an overwhelmingly hostile press smearing him everyday, Gore still won the popular vote.  So how can you be so sure that the problem was his uncompelling narrative?  

Let me just add that I won't dispute that Bush may have had a MORE compelling narrative, or that if Gore had had a much better one he may have done better.  But I do think that the press' behavior is a separate variable - it was actively hostile to Gore from day one having absolutely nothing to do with the relative merits of his narrative - and it may very well be actively hostile to Obama's now that Hillary's out of the way.  We'll find out by November whether or not Obama's narrative is strong enough to counter whatever the press ends up cooking up for him.

pccostello, I don't for a second believe that you're actually gone.   You're addicted to your fantasies.  We've piled on a bit, and so you'll crawl back into your hole for some Travis Bickle-style playacting in front of the mirror, but sooner or later you'll come back for some more masochistic fun.  I'm counting on it.

As for your invitation for me to ignore your posts, I will disrespectfully decline,  however unpleasant you may find me and my responses.  I take it as my prerogative to respond with derision to falsehood, madness, and condescension wherever I see it.

As for my "vulgar response," well, you offered to take me to school.  "Take copious notes," you said.  I suppose I could've come up with some equally delusional, self-aggrandizing snark in response, but "fuck you" seemed by far the more authentic reaction.

newdex,

It is never possible to be sure as there is no controlled experiment, but Gore should have won by several million votes.

"She is going to the convention. There is no reason for her to get out." --A "devoted

Hillary is never going to "get out" of her own free will.  Her time in the spotlight is all she has and it is all the reason she needs.  Whether or not her continuing to campaign, whether or not her attacks on Obama are bad for the Democratic party, is of no interest to her at all.  Doesn't even figure in.  Thus, even an upset in PA would not be reason enough for her to concede.

The only thing that will bring this to an end would be (1) as Rhubarbs has said, she runs out of money (not likely, she has enough die-hard donors to keep her on life-support probably indefinitely (2) she loses, which will happen when the super delegates declare and Obama has an absolute majority.  If Obama were to pull off an upset in PA, that alone would probably suffice for the remaining supers to get off the fence.  If she wins with less than 5%, that might set off a strong flow of supers to Obama that could turn into a torrent.  That's, even possible if she wins with less than 10% because the delegate count will change by so little, but if there is a big turnout and the 10% is a good chunk of popular votes, she will have a narrative that she can "win the popular vote" (she can't, its a fiction) that may still keep the supers sitting on their hands, allowing the farce to continue, lest they be accused of cutting the race short before Hillary has had her chance.

Nope, what is necessary for the supers to move is a state of affairs in which Hillary can no longer claim that she might win without the vast majority of Democrats regarding that as risible.  We might be there after PA.  If not, we will surely be there after NC and IN when Hillary will be further behind in both delegates and popular votes then she is today, with very few votes left to be cast and very few pledged delegates left to be won.

However, as signaled by her supporters, Hillary will not concede even then.  She is going to prolong her "importance" as long as she can because she is a narcissist.  The difference is that, once Obama has an absolute majority of pledged and super delegates, most of the rest of the world will no longer take any of this seriously.  Will it be good for the Democrats to have her pretending there is still a race?  No, it won't.  But if she can at least keep her obnoxious fat mouth shut, it won't be that bad.

Roi, I don't know if you'll see this, but:

"It is never possible to be sure as there is no controlled experiment, but Gore should have won by several million votes."

Agreed. But why didn't he?  Almost no one will dispute at this point that he was savaged by the media, yet the "serious" commentators are all very sure it was his lackluster campaign that was the real culprit.  Here's my question:

Did the Patriots lose the superbowl because they didn't score enough points or because the Giants scored too many?  

My ultimate point: the Media is our enemy.  It has destroyed Hillary and now its turning its guns on Obama.  

newdex,

I'm not going to argue that the media is our friend.  I find the notion of liberal media laughable, especially in the age of corporate media, the one we live in.

However, this raises the issue of how you get good  press and how you don't when the media cannot be controlled in any way by a candidate.  I believe that the way in which a candidate achieves this is by having a narrative that manages to rise to the top of the heap and become the controlling narrative.  This tames the press, to the extent it can be tamed, because there is something in journalists that does not like to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the public.  They will always attack and nibble, because they want to take down any leader, but you keep them at bay by managing the meta-narrative.  Once you are driven to a point by point defense against the media, you are already in a hopeless situation.