Look at the bright side: In 2005 the Chicago White Sox almost made history by blowing a huge lead and not making the playoffs.  They stumbled into the postseason, then went nearly undefeated to win the world series -- I'd argue that the relief of making it to the playoffs took a weight of their shoulders and allowed them to play like themselves.  

Though I still think they should act like JFK/LBJ and pair up no matter how much they hate each other.

There is something energizing -- for Hillary or anyone -- in a quixotic campaign to nowhere that has no personal downside, everything to gain and nothing left to lose.  Quite liberating I am sure.  On the other hand, pointlessly having to keep defending an already ordained outcome against such a quixotic campaign to nowhere -- with everything to lose and nothing left to gain -- has to be wearying.

Let's see how the candidates look on the eve of NC when it is clear that in another 36 hours Hillary's campaign will be mort once and for all.

The positive news is that the PA campaign has improved Obama's numbers in PA against McCain.  He is also widening his lead over Hillary in national polls.  And, the national polls of Obama v McCain are slowly turning all blue, only one red poll left in the most recent tier.

As Hillary continues to lose ground in delegates and, after May 6, in the popular vote, these poll results will pretty much kill any argument Hillary has about her greater electability.  I continue to predict that the supers will fold after NC and it will be over.  I also continue to predict that Hillary will not accept that outcome but will continue to carry on until August as if the nomination is in doubt.

The question for Obama and the party will be how to start his campaign against McCain while Hillary carries on her distracting sideshow and continues to cast doubt on his candidacy?  Maybe the Hillaristas will explain to us how she is doing that for our own collective good.  That is a point in time where people like Gore could accomplish something useful by saying openly and firmly that the race is over and it is time for the party to come together behind its nominee.

lymon,

The one certain kiss of death for Obama in the general election would be putting Hillary on the ticket.  Someone with some actual experience could be helpful to Obama.  Someone without sky-high negatives could be helpful to Obama.  Someone with pull in a key state could be helpful to Obama.

A loser like Hillary would only sink him about as fast as she sunk herself.  The Republican party would get all the benefit of having the anti-Christ on the Dem ticket with none of the downside.  I cannot think of a worse idea.  But then, the Hillaristas will continue to press this as the next best way to get Hillary close to the Oval Office.  I mean, why not Lieberman?

maybe it was just my TV, but the audio was bad for Obama's feed in the Daily Show. That didn't help

This post is almost the definition of over-analysis.

I saw both.  Hillary was fine.  So was Obama.  Sorry if he wasn't as funny as Michelle, but BFD, man.  He was in good humor.  My wife watched it, and although an Obama supporter, she is not a political obsessive like me.  She thought he seemed very loose and comfortable, spontaneous in a good way (the "paranoia" line was classic).

Actually, the really interesting thing about both interviews is how superior Olbermann and Stewart were to Steph and Gibson.  Even the trivial questions were treated in such as way as to make it clear that they were trivia, but milked for a tiny bit of substance.

I know Olbermann can be hyperbolic and over the top, but if given enough valium beforehand, he would make an excellent debate moderator.

It seemed to me that Hillary was filibustering all her answers and talking for minutes at a time without really answering the questions.  I figured that she knew it was a 15 minute interview, so if she talked for a long time after each question there would be less questions.  I don't think that talking at length about something equals lucidity, since she never really answered a number of the questions.

Not to mention the threat to nuke Iran if they attack any country in the region is pretty worrisome.

great points by lymon and roid. Although I am not sure how the universally accepted notion of a tight front runner should come as a surprise to Noam.

roid, I agree about Hillary not being on the ticket. At best she will try to be co-President (Bill as former and her as VP equal Obama as Pres.) and at worst will try to make it President by committee, with Bill, Hillary, and Obama each getting one vote. Anyway, I am loathe to accept the notion of Bill thinking he is entitled to give Obama his opinion on everything, which could happen with Hillary given such high access.

With Hillary off the ticket, Bill will just be another former President.

In any event, the chance that either would put the other on the ticket is exactly nil.  Neither would be willing to endure an independent operator with unrequited aspirations to kill the king or queen.  It is a dream ticket alright, as in nightmare.

In electoral terms, neither helps the other with independents.  If it takes both of them on the ticket to secure the Democratic base, then the Dems are doomed anyway.  I doubt very much that it does.  Everyone is angry at this point, but when Democrats actually have to contemplate either Obama or four more years of Republicans, they won't have trouble deciding that whatever happened in the primaries is no longer important.

I agree with tim's wife -- Obama was pretty good with Stewart. As good as Michelle. He was relaxed, in a good mood, and the paranoia line was great. I didn't see Olbermann; but Obama was way better than Clinton was when she appeared on the Daily Show before the last primaries (perhaps the more appropriate comparison.) She was pretty lame in that interview. She's good at performing scripted comedy  (e.g. SNL & the Colbert skit)  but not at rolling spontaneously with Stewart or Colbert's kind of humor. This is where Obama does better. (FWIW.)

The wingnuts over at The Corner were saying how formidable an Obama/Clinton ticket would be, so you know that it can't be a good idea.  

I wasn't happy with Obama's performance (I didn't see Hillary's) -- mostly for the reason Noam thinks it was (partially) good.  While Stewart's bit was smart and funny, I think it served to devalue the speeches Obama gives.  

If Obama can make "I’m calling to ask if you’re happy with your cell phone service" sound as inspirational as he made his speech on race sound, doesn't that detract a bit from the value of the words Obama used?  

And doesn't it suggest that we'd be better off hiring Alan Alda or Morgan Freeman to be our President that we would be electing Al Gore or John Kerry -- just because Alda/Freeman can make even the most banal statements sound full of hope and grace?

Don't you find it interesting that even as the punditry critiques Obama's performance as "less good" than Hillary, he gains in the polls against McCain and Hillary?  There is clearly a quality about Obama and his public appeal that the punditry simply does not get.  I think that when he struggles a bit and doesn't seem so eerily smooth, the public warms to him even more because the sense is that he is not Robert Redford in The Candidate, simply acting, but genuinely and authentically believes the things he is saying.  Hence, his numbers improve.

As of this moment, the Tiimes is reporting that Hillary is preparing to continue her campaign right to the end of June -- and no doubt beyond -- regardless of the outcome in her "must-win" PA.  To no great surprise, Hillary imagines that as long as the supers have not declared, she can still argue that they should prefer her or hope for some bolt of lightening that will change the outcome.

Here is what Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi need to do:

After NC and IN, the pledged delegate count margin will be pretty close to what it is today.  I predict a little more in Obama's favor, but in any case not very different.  At that point, if there is no super-delegate change, there will be 303 uncommitted supers and 217 pledged delegates left to choose, a total of 520.  To cover her 142 combined deficit out of that, Hillary would have to win 64% of those remaining delegates.   Highly unlikely, but not yet preposterous.  They need to find 50 supers to come off the fence in favor of Obama.  At that point, he would have a lead of 26 amongst the supers (the first time he will have held such a lead) and 166 amongst the pledged delegates.  Hillary would need more than 70% of the open delegates at that point.  Almost preposterous.  But, more important, she would have to get some undeclareds who favor her to declare to counter the perception that she is toast.

A decent bet is that this precipitates a chain reaction, egged on by the leadership, in which the supers all end up declaring lest the other side's supers run away with the contest.  When the dust settles, I figure Obama has at least a 200 delegate lead with only 320 delegates theoretically open.  Then Hillary needs more than 80% of the open delegates to win.  That is preposterous enough.  Most of her funding dries up and she can no longer compete credibly.

The main point is that ambiguity allows Hillary to continue although anyone who can count can see that she is done.  The leadership can perhaps end the ambiguity and leave her naked, still claiming that she is fighting and running and has a chance when the whole world can see that it ain't so.

Another blatant Obama-phile post! When does it stop, Scheiber?!