One has to be willfully blind not to see the kind of potential good that can be achieved by virtue of an Obama candidacy. I the Dems fail to nominate him as their standard bearer they will have disavowed much of what they supposedly stand for. I guess it can be scary this fear of change. Just ask Rev Wright.

I just don't see how the Dems can do better than this very eloquent spokesman for the Democratic platform. I'll say this...regardless of what the polls may say, if Hillary is the nominee then John McCain will definitely be the next President.

Dean won two primaries, not a majority. Dean caved early. John Kerry never suggested that Dean was a pussy, worse than Bush, didn't suck up to Fox News and the Bill O and Dean didn't spend several months tearing down a fellow democrat. The comparison is laughable.

You're right, except I don't accept your benchmarks.  That is, HRC needs to win in both IN and NC for anyone to start having buyer's remorse on a serious enough level to take their BHO endorsement to the Exchange Window.  A decent HRC victory in IN plus a narrow loss in NC won't be good for Obama, but it won't be fatal, either.

FWIW, I will predict in advance:

Obama in NC by 8 to 12.

HRC in Indiana by 6 to 10.

Net delegate win for Obama, followed by more supers for Obama, resulting in Obama coming within 100 to 150 of nomination before next round of primaries.  Inevitability of Obama clear to all sane people.

Well Noam, it depends on what the meaning of "might" is.  There is no doubt that a loss by Obama in NC would create an opening -- but it would not be an opening for super-delegates.  Rather it would be an opening for the remaining races to matter in the event of a very powerful shift toward Hillary.  THEN the super-delegates might be willing in effect to overweight the last races (not unlike the rankings for college football) sufficiently to tilt the balance toward Hillary.  They also have to close their eyes to the fact that she has a 54% unfavorability rating. Try asking a professional pol what she thinks of a candidate's chances with that sort of a hurdle.  They'd scoff at you.  Throw on top of that the fact the professionals probably don't like Hillary any more than the public does and that they are probably at least if not more disposed toward Obama privately than they are toward Hillary.

So, just because the chain of events that "might" get Hillary the nomination is not against any law of physics, you can say she still "might" win.  But the odds are spectacularly low given the state of play as ably explained by Eve Fairbanks.

"...that result as damage inflicted by Wright. And that's damage that can't be laid at Hillary's feet, meaning it isn't likely to trigger an ugly, unresolvable backlash."

If the democratic party decides to overrule the popular vote, the GOP will turn it into an endless media circus. Overnight they'll flip (in lockstep) from bashing Wright to bashing the democratic party for being racist and elitist.

I really don't understand why you can't see this.

You are in a word - DELUSIONAL.

White Progressives simply don't get it.

This isn't even about Barack Obama anymore.

This is about whether the Black Community is going to consign themselves to being put PERMANENTLY IN THE BACK OF THE BUS POLITICALLY.

Are you really that delusional that you believe that Black folk,

after seeing Hillary Clinton STEAL THE NOMINATION from the first viable Black candidate for President of the United States of America....  based on a foundation of RACEBAITING ...

That Black folk are going to vote for her?

Put down whatever drugs you are taking.

I'll use my own immediate family as an example.

There are  12 of us.

12 Black Democrats who vote in every election - Primary and General.

ONLY 2 will vote for Hillary.

2.

The rest of us haven't decided what we're going to do, but we are united in this..

We will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

Here's a hint to you: don't try and threaten Black folk with ' bad times'. Being Black in America is the definition of 'bad time', so we see McCain as Bush III. We survived Bush/Cheney, we can survive John McCain.

I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton because I will NEVER become a complicit accomplice to saying that what she did was ok. I will NEVER validate her tactics.

Once she began to racebait Barack Obama, it wasn't even about Barack Obama anymore.

It was about ANY future Black politician with aspirations higher than a gerrymandered Congressional Seat.

Hillary Clinton, if she is validated, will have given the blueprint for how a DEMOCRAT can takeout future Black politicians. You can't possibly believe that this would be the exception and not the rule.

I'm not having any parts of that.

Black folk are told all their lives that they have to: Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and FOLLOW THE RULES.

Well, Barack Obama has done BOTH...

I'll give a little insight to Black folk.

On the short list of things that bother Black folk to no end is the game of White folks to change the rules in the middle of the game to suit their purposes.

THAT is something all Black folk can relate to as we watch this bull#*$& going on with Florida and Michigan. They didn't follow the rules, but because it could help Clinton, suddenly the rules that everyone agreed on, don't apply anymore.

There comes a moment in every generation of Black folk where they have to..

As James Brown said..

I'd rather die standing...

Than live on my knees...

If you had told me that THAT moment would be about the campaign of Barack Obama, I wouldn't have believed you, but this is the way the winds of history seem to be shaping up.

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans to Black people are that Black folk believe that 'at least Democrats RESPECT US.'

IF they STEAL it for HIllary...

That will be gone.  And not just for this election cycle. It will be GONE.

You better stop listening to those Handkerchief Heads of Hillarys, cause the influence they have with Black tolk could fit into a thimble.

James Clyburn has already told you the truth about how Black folk are thinking.

This week, Rasmussen came out with a poll that showed Hillary with 59% support among Blacks.

I personally believe that's too high,but let's take Rasmussen at its word.

59% for a DEMOCRAT from THE BASE?

And this is BEFORE SHE STEALS IT?

I'll ask again: are you really that delusional that you believe it will GO UP after she STEALS IT?

Let me break the Black community down for you and explain why you are wrong.

Segment 1: Blue Collar Black Folk

This group is the least inclined to vote in the first place. They spend their time just trying to survive in America, but they are inspired by Obama, and are willing to participate in the process for them. For them, Obama is the first example that they can point to, where it might actually be worth is to 'believe in the system'. If it is STOLEN from Obama, those folks won't vote for Hillary, and a good number of them will not vote again, period.

But, usually, you can 'divide and conquer' with Black folk, using one of the the following 2 groups to try and influence and reason with Segment 1. But, guess what, that won't happen this time.

Segment 2: Middle Class & Professional Class Black Folk

There is a reason why this group, in the Black Community, was the first to fully embrace Barack Obama's candidacy..

BECAUSE HE IS ONE OF THEM.

Because this group completely identifies with Obama, and his quest, because they parallel it to their own struggles in Corporate America. They watch as Obama, playing by the rules as set out, worked his ass off and succeeded. And just as it seems as if he would cross the finish line, 'the bar' continues to be moved. They completely relate to this, because they know, in their own lives, how, following the rules and seeing the endzone in sight, how 'new rules' are often pulled out of nowhere, and they have to adapt, or lose.

These folks will never ever ever vote for Hillary, because a rejection of Obama, is a rejection of them. These are the Black folk most connected into ' The System', and they have followed the rules.

Which brings me to the last group, the failsafe group, USUALLY.

Segment 3: Black Senior Citizens

Usually, this is the 'rational' group. The ' well, they are nice White folks' group.

Not this time.

THIS is the group that has suffered the most. They have been forged by a world of dogs, firehoses, segregation in the North, Jim Crow in the South. They are the ones for him THE defining thing in their lives was being Black, because it limited the world that they lived. There was no such thing as ' career aspirations' for this group. There was no such thing ' what do you see for yourself'. They suffered humiliations that someone like me, in their 30's, can only imagine, and can only get an inking of because of the pain in the voices of the Elders as they tell their stories.

For them, Barack Obama is the essence of everything they ever thought they sacrificed for. He is the manifestation of all they had hoped America could be. His manners, and his adult life have been the very best melding of the modern with Old School, and they adore him. This is the group that wants to DIE knowing that the pain, the humiliation, the hurt, the degredation that they took, was FOR SOMETHING. They also see Obama as a gift for their grandchildren and future generations.

If it's STOLEN from Obama, then that would mean that their lives and all they went through WAS FOR NOTHING.

Black people are very clear about this: They know that if Obama can't make it, then truly, there will NEVER be a Black President of the United States. They know it instinctively.

And, you're delusional if you believe Black folk will vote for the person they believe STOLE IT FROM HIM.

PS- about the Wright attack at The NPC, in case you didn't know..

Wright's appearance was arranged by a huge Hillary Supporter, Barbara Reynolds.

Read Errol Louis' column this week in the New York Daily News.

There aren't enough coincidences in the Western World to convince Black folk that Clinton wasn't behind it. She doesn't get the benefit of the doubt...not after Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Bob Johnson, Andy Young, Geraldine Ferraro...you do understand now, why she gets no slack.

Why should Indiana or North Carolina weigh more heavily than earlier primaries and caucuses?  If Hillary walks off with the nomination, it will stink to high heaven.  The backlash will be from people who value democracy, respect due process, and don't like dirty politics.  People like me.

Neil

I think the flaw in your argument here is the assumption that Wright would be perceived as the reason Obama didn't get the candidacy.

Many of us would not see Wright as the issue. We would see dirty politics as the issue. We would see it as proving that the Rovian tactics are sanctioned by this party (whether they come from the Clinton campaign or the media or the opposition party) and therefore, we might not support this party any longer, period. Why bother if there is no hope that it represents us moving in the direction we want to move.

I also think that you cannot underestimate how important Obama's fundraising machine and donor lists are. Those new donors are not activated by the Democratic Party and are certainly not motivated by Clinton. And they aren't all young. I'm 45 and this is the first time I've financially supported a candidate in this party. (I supported the Green Party once.) I did so because Obama really does seem to be a breed with more integrity and a commitment to leading us out of the systemic mire. I'm not naive enough to think he can make all the changes he, or we, would like. But I think he can begin a process and inspire us to look more earnestly for leaders like him and to stop settling for Bush/Clinton-type politicians.

Hey, shouldn't the news media be setting up some serious expectations for Hillary in the next two contests at this point?  I mean, after Reverend Wright in all his glory, plus the GOP's glee at picking on Obama and the endorsement by Gov. Easley, shouldn't she be favored to WIN in North Carolina, not just Indiana??    If she can't carry the single biggest remaining state in the Democratic primaries under the current alignment of stars, how can she hope to secure the nomination?  And, if she loses there by 9 points or so, shouldn't the media essentially treat that loss in the same way that they treated Obama's loss in Pennsylvania, as a devastating momentum-shifter?

Democratic voters needn't be aggrieved by process to reject a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton.  The candidate herself would give many of us sufficient reason to be disaffected and consider our alternatives.  Out of the frying pan and into the fire?

I think eudoxie's post is one worth reading. And I don't think you have to black to feel exactly as this post describes. Certainly blacks have their particular experience of oppression that cannot be compared, too. But many have felt oppressed by a system that changes the rules and the goalposts to suit a certain portion of society. The wealthy.

The Clintons are part of that class. Not just because they've earned millions, but because they've embraced the power they have as leaders as an ticket into that class. Yes. there is a non-profit, but so many of their activities have been for the purpose of serving the wealthy and being invited into the fold.

Obama is newly wealthy. His books have earned him some money. But he still seems connected to the challenges of being poor or middle-class. He still seems committed to shifting the way influence is peddled so that the rich are not the ones being protected. The bills he's chosen to work on demonstrate that. This is why so many of us are behind him and not necessarily the Democratic Party. We will get behind the party if they choose to follow the path he is suggesting. If they continue on the path theyve been on and sanction the ways of the Clintons, we'll look elsewhere for leadership.

I'm a white woman who's with you, Eudoxie.

Eudoxie,

Thanks for posting that. I just forwarded it to several friends.

Eudoxie tells it like it is.  I would also note that old white women won't have nearly as strong an argument for boycotting Obama in the fall.

If the honkeys take this one away from Obama, I will be outraged.

One of the debates around our office these last two days has been whether it's still possible, as

eudoxie - thanks for painting such a clear picture.  Having just read "Yet a Stranger: Why Black Americans Still Don't Feel at Home" by Deborah Mathis (a book I heartily recommend to everyone), I can easily imagine the political tsunami you describe that would accompany depriving Obama of the nomination he had earned.  I just hope the supers are smart enough to get it.

I said it once and I'll say it again: I do not think Easley's endorsement will help HRC. If anything it might hurt her.  Easley is pretty much disliked in the state after several screw-ups in his administration in the last few months, his petty political paybacks to underlings and complete stonewalling of the press.  He's really become quite unpopular lately.

I voted for Easley twice and regret it immensely.  Him endorsing HRC just reinforced my opinion that BO is the right man for POTUS.

eudoxie, that was great. asnevitt you also hit on something that bothers me to no end, which is the belief that Hillary is for the "little guy" and Obama looks down on them. The truth is that there paths in life tell a distinctly different story. This is something that does not get reported on adequately.

People have been comparing Obama to George McGovern, saying we don't want another McGovern campaign in which the Democrats lose by a landslide by offering a candidate who is perceived as being too far to the left.

I think the appropriate comparison is between Hillary and Hubert Horatio Humphrey in 1968. The mood of the country and the momentum was clearly in the direction of a campaign that could tap the energy and idealism of Robert F. Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy; but Kennedy was dead and the Party, in their great wisdom, coroneted Humphrey  (the old style politician who supported the war in Vietnam). Young idealists bolted the party; blacks were lukewarm at best and the Party lost a close election due to disillusion from within.

Give the nomination to Hillary if you want to, but expect a Hubert Humphrey outcome in November.

You know, Obama supporters are so fond of laying down the law about what the rules of the game are when it suits them.  As in, "Florida and Michigan don't count, they knew the rules and went ahead, blah, blah, blah."  Well, the superdelgates are part of the rules too.  If they were bound, morally or whatever,  to mimic the delegate count from the caucuses and primaries,  THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY REASON TO HAVE ANY SUPERDELGATES.  

The purpose of the superdelgates is to provide some type of balance to the vote of the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic base that dominates the primaries and caucuses.  And in particular, to determine just who might have the better chance of getting elected in the fall.  So that we don't keep nominating candidates that make progressives and minorities drool; while leaving swing voters and other Americans shaking their heads and voting for Republican presidents.

I happen to think the best shot of winning the White House would be a Gore-Obama ticket.  Second best shot is a Clinton-Obama ticket.  I just don't see how Obama can pull off a victory at the top of the ticket, especially after the Wright fiasco.  

What is most aggravating is that you see this rising sense among Obama supporters that he is a risky general election prospect, or even that he is unlikely to win.  AND THEY DON'T CARE!!!  They would rather their hero get nominated and lose than have Hillary get nominated and win.  I think some would even prefer losing, particularly if it can be blamed on white racism.  Wouldn't blacks, for instance, be better off supporting WHOMEVER has the best shot against McCain?  I thought the reason black supposedly didn't support brother Obama en masse until after Iowa was because they weren't sure he was a winner, i.e. weren't sure he had NON-BLACK appeal?  Well, guess what, he doesn't look like much of winner now, either!!!

Let the chip fall where they may.  Finish voting in the states and Peurto Rico.  Then let the remaining uncommitted super delegates decide in June who really has the best chance of being in the position to replace John Paul Stevens next year.  Account for angry Obamaniacs who will threaten to riot if Obama isn't the nominee.   Figure SOME of them might come back if they are made to realize that the Supreme Court is one vote away from overturning race-based affirmative action.  Balance them against alll the bitter people who not inclined to gamble on the mystery man from Hawaii/Indonesia/Harvard/South Side.  

If the Democrats award Hillary Rodham Clinton the nomination without her having earned it, by allowing the super delegates to pass over the candidate with the highest number of popular votes and largest share of delegates, it will be a good time for African Americans to pause and calmly consider their options.

In the past, it has been difficult for African Americans to vote for Republicans. In 1964 Goldwater attracted voters who were opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights legislation, and this did not endear Republicans to African Americans. In 1968, Richard Nixon ran on the “Southern Strategy,” which was deliberately designed to appeal to white southerners who were bitter about the gains that African Americans were making, particularly in having their right to vote protected by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 1976, Gerald Ford ran for president by tapping into white northern resentment over school bussing for integrated schools. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran for president promising to end welfare, using images of overweight African American women in his TV ads, and making references to “welfare queens.” In 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush ran for president with Willie Horton ads, highlighting a black rapist murderer and stirring up the fears of white voters.

But this time is different. This time it is the Hillary Clinton (a former “Goldwater Girl”) wing of the Democratic Party that has made the calculated decision that they would have to appeal to white working class. Yes, they focused on economic issues but they also race-baited. Obama, who made no attempt to depict himself as a black man running for president, but rather as a candidate for president who incidentally happened to be black was (and still is) constantly brought into the narrative of speeches by Bill and Hillary Clinton where they point out that if Obama is elected he would be the first “black” president just as if Hillary is elected she will be the first “woman” president. This works to generate the votes of older women for Hillary Clinton, but it also serves to marginalize Obama as, above everything else, a “black man.”

The narrative was made more explicit when, out of nowhere, Hillary Clinton compared Obama to Martin Luther King as contrasted to her Lyndon Johnson. “Martin Luther King,” she said, “could dream about racial equality, but it took a president to sign it into law.” A few days later, when asked what it says about Obama’s campaign skills that it required both Bill and Hillary Clinton to campaign in North Carolina Clinton gave a good ol’ boy grin and said, “Jesse Jackson won North Carolina too.” He skipped over comparing Obama with himself, who also won North Carolina twice; and over Al Gore, who won it in 2000, and over John Edwards who won it in 2004. No, those comparisons wouldn’t do because that would show Obama as transcending race. Rather, Clinton reached back 20 years in order to compare Barack Obama only with another “black” man, and thereby try to marginalize his candidacy.

And then there were other race-baiting tactics; the screeching Geraldine Ferraro tirade that lasted for 48 hours on the mass media ginning up all of the fear and resentment about being “passed over” by a “black man” that resonated so well with blue collar voters in declining Pennsylvania mill towns who have been looking for someone to blame for their misfortunes. This was followed by Hillary Clinton’s whisper campaign to the super delegates that Obama was “unelectable” because he is “black.” Governor Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania then went public with the campaign and flat out that there are at least five percent of white Pennsylvanians who would never vote for an African American.

Additionally, many Democrats have shown profound indifference to the interests and needs of low-income African Americans. They have suggested that the Democratic Party suffers from being too closely identified with black people. They have prodded their candidates to have a “Sista Soulja moment,” where their candidates should publically slap down blacks to score points with some white voters. They have told black voters that they really don’t care if they feel ignored beyond having a few token representatives in high positions within the Party; blacks, they say, have no place else to go – no other options.

Meanwhile, this is one of those rare moments when the Republican Party’s national candidate has not, thus far, resorted to race-baiting. On the contrary, one of his first acts upon securing the nomination of his Party was to make a moving speech in Memphis honoring Martin Luther King, and he highlighted the speech on his web site. McCain has also made a tour through the South, in largely African American areas, listening to voters and presenting his vision for the future. He visited New Orleans and promised never again to allow the federal government to handle the needs of American citizens so poorly. In contrast to the Clinton campaign, and the voices of many Democrats who seem to see blacks as being expendable, it seems that McCain does not feel uncomfortable with attracting black votes.

And it is not as though there isn’t a good fit, philosophically, between the African American community and the Republican Party. During periods when employment improves in African American neighborhoods and community revitalization takes place, the process is always lead by the growth of small businesses. Most minority-owned businesses are small. But small business is often bogged down in excessive regulations and taxes that kill their growth. The Republicans, more than the Democrats, are philosophically more suited to change administrative policies and past legislation that will benefit minority business growth by removing many of burdens placed on small businesses.

African Americans who vote are often closely tied to faith-based institutions. The strongest organized body in African American communities tends to be the black church. More than whites, blacks tend to be suspicious of secular humanism (having been treated as objects for exploitation and experimentation on the basis of secularist “scientific” arguments). Due to economic stress and the relativism of popular culture African American church-goers are concerned about the deterioration of their families and community, and about violence and the popularized “bling-bling” culture. If there is to be a viable movement for African American self-help, it is likely to come from its churches. Republicans seem to understand this, but people like Hillary think all of the solutions will come from Washington.

So, it is time for reassessment. If Hillary is granted the nomination of the Democratic Party, a nomination that she hasn’t earned, African Americans would do well to take a good look at John McCain or Ralph Nadar. It is unhealthy for a population to allow its vote to be taken for granted by one political party and to be written off by another party. If many white Democrats are nervous about having blacks around, while John McCain is actively courting black votes this could present a golden opportunity for a re-alignment; not unlike the re-alignment following the election of FDR, when blacks moved from being Republican to being Democrats. After more than 70 years of being married to the Democratic Party, this relationship is beginning to look somewhat abusive. Maybe it’s time to go dating again and see what John McCain or Ralph Nadar has to offer.

P.S. eudoxie is 100% correct in her reading of the mood in the African American community and the three social classes she identified.

eudoxie, and the many folks who praised her post,  

Please read, if you haven't already, the column at www.womensmediacenter.com/.../020108.html.  

Since eudoxie repeated the prior post, I'll repeat my concern.  Obviously eudoxie makes powerful points about history and justice.  The problem is that many women make similar, and similarly powerful, arguments about how similar experiences and injustices are "stealing" the election from Hillary (in terms of misogynist comments such as "iron my shirt," in terms of media bias, etc.).  

Full disclosure: I'm neither black nor a woman.  I recognize that, as a result, I may be accused of lacking standing to weigh in on this matter.  But, I'm still a US voter, and when I read eudoxie's post alongside the women's media center link, I shrink from trying to resolve the dispute on those terms (i.e., the relevant injustices experienced by blacks and women).  It seems to me, therefore, that we need to keep this focused, as much as possible, on "who would win in the Fall" and/or "who would be the better president?"  

In a fair and open debate about who would be the best president, I think Obama can win.  I also think Hillary can win.  Maybe even McCain can win.  But that should be the debate.  

roid, virginiacentrist, GSpinks, other fair-minded friends of Obama -- some questions for you:

(1)  Why don't we include Florida in the popular vote tally?  

GSpinks, you're a rules wonk, so help me out here.  It's true that Hillary agreed not to campaign in Florida. It appears she lived up to that commitment.  It may even be that Obama did not, see blogs.cqpolitics.com/.../where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html.  

But Hillary never agreed that Florida delegates should not be seated, and there are legitimate and fair reasons why some of them might get seated.  That debate is happening right now in the legitimate process set up by the Democratic Party.  The debate itself is not one-sided or abstract -- it's evenly balanced, with good facts and arguments and appeals to justice on both sides.  See wiki.idebate.org/.../Debate:Michigan_and_Florida_delegates_in_2008_US_elections.  

But, the delegate debate is separate from the debate about whether to count, as part of the "popular vote tally," the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who hauled it out to vote during that primary.  No one ever suggested to them that they should stay home.  Florida is a crucial swing state Democrats must win.  Why would Democrats not at least take those votes into account in considering who won the popular vote?  

Also, crucially, the REPUBLICANS SET THE DATE OF THE FLORIDA PRIMARY.  Doesn't any progressive Democrat on this blog see the potential irony of having the popular vote overturned due to a procedural rule in Florida set by Republicans -- but in the Democratic primary of '08 rather than the general election of '00?  

People on this blog obviously care and take the time to understand issues -- why can't we agree to a nuanced understanding of the situation, where Michigan shouldn't count, but maybe Florida should?  

(2)  At this stage, given the current facts, isn't the final popular vote important?  

I agree that the popular vote isn't everything.  Pledged delegates are obviously and legally a major determinant to who wins.  And superdelegates are allowed to consider whatever they want as a check and balance against the pledged delegates.

But shouldn't the popular vote matter at all?  Isn't that at least a factor that superdelegates should consider?  At this stage, given Obama's massive financial advantages and significant lead in the popular vote (even including Florida), if Hillary wins the remaining contests, isn't that a testament to her perseverance, her ability to connect with voters, and the performance of Obama in the face of the first major national media attention he's faced?  

On the flip side, if he wins the overall popular vote, isn't that the end of the story and proof (alongside his pledged-delegate win, his strategic mastery of the caucus states, his rhetoric, his resilience in the face of Wright, etc.) that he deserves the nomination?  

(3) Aren't pledged-delegate totals the ONE thing that superdelegates can't consider?  

As for the pledged delegates, it seems to me that's the ONE thing superdelegates can't consider.  After all, their very existence is as a check against the pledged delegates.  Their role is to provide independent review.  If they're just going to validate the previous process, then they shouldn't exist.  Maybe they shouldn't -- that's something to consider for the future.  But, today they have a role, and the fact that they have a "checks and balances" role means that they cannot simply rubber-stamp the pledged delegates vote.  

(4)  Are you sure that Barack is the underdog?  

Back to virginiacentrist and the underdog story, who is the underdog here?  The media has overwhelmingly opposed her from day one, using an arsenal of attacks that clearly includes misogyny.  The Ivy League educated Democrats, and the wealthier Democrats, have overwhelmingly supported Obama.  For many months, he's had an overwhelming money advantage, which he still has.  He has a massive advantage in pledged delegates.  Superdelegates, smelling his likely victory and wanting to pick the winning horse, have disproportionately bolted for him.  In light of all this, where do you come up with the idea that she's the one who's had this "handed" to her, or who has felt "entitled" to this?  Doesn't he have an overwhelming set of advantages, at least for the past half-year?  If Hillary manages to overcome that, doesn't that imply something important (and good) about her?  

(5)  Can we stop with the "stealing the election" rhetoric?  

Stealing the election is about ballot-stuffing, about voter fraud, not about the proper decision-criteria for superdelegates.  As kapny points out, in a race this close, with procedural issues this complex, either side can use the "steals the election" rhetoric against the other side.  Doing so is frankly unpatriotic, as it pours poison into the electoral process and delegitimizes the others' arguments.  We are all Americans, we (I think) are all Democrats -- heck, we're all TNR subscribers -- surely we can admit that this process, however it plays out, does not involve theft.  

Go EUDOXIE and MATTHAWK.

I can't think of any surer way of breaking up the Democratic Party than to give this nomination to Hillary Clinton almost regardless of what now happens.  And yes, I as an Obama supporter would much rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary.  When Hillary and Bill took a page from the Karl Rove playbook both with Wrightgate and with bittergate/elitist and with race baiting... whatever shred of doubt I had left about them was over.  I will not vote for an empty label called "Democratic Party" which is no longer recognizable from all the mean spiritedness and nastiness and distortions that have characterized our public discourse for a long time now.

AND let me say it here Eudoxie and offer this 70 year old White Woman's help in organizing to make sure it happens... what's the point of staying home and not voting.   Matthawk is absolutely correct.  Black should move in droves to the Republican party.  Indeed if we Progressives and Blacks move in droves to the Republican party, particularly one led by a man who whatever his faults and lapses of judgment and embrace of Bush to get the nomination, is a man of honor,  we might be able to effect the type of change that is necessary.  In all events it would be a wise strategic choice.  The Republicans got us into the mess.  Let them try to fix it.  Why vote for Hillary and make sure no Democrat is elected again for yet another generation or two.  It is time for a change and Hillary represents none whatsoever in her modus operandi... which is precisely the main cause of the problem.

It's not just rebellion against Hillary, and it's not just African-Americans and young people. Your correspondent is very white -- in the cultural sense -- and hardly a spring chicken. And it's not so much that I almost certainly cannot vote for Hillary Clinton for president. It's that I'm really not sure I'm willing to belong to a political party that would nominate Hillary Clinton for president. If the election were held today between Hillary and McCain, I'd probably write somebody in. But if the election were between Hillary and a McCain ticket with a reasonably palatable VP, I could vote for McCain. And as a practical matter, I know that if Hillary is on the ticket, my enthusiasm for Mark Warner's campaign here in VA will be pretty low. Yeah, I'll vote for Warner, and I'll send him some money. But if Hillary gets the nomination, I probably won't wind up doing much work on behalf of Warner and the state Democratic candidates. And I'm sure as heck not going to go canvassing my precinct for the Dem ticket if Hillary's on it.

My precinct has the highest percentage of Democratic primary participation (no party registration in VA, so one has to measure primary ballot choice) and the lowest overall turnout of any precinct in Northern Virginia. When the handful of active-in-the-party Democrats in the neighborhood canvass hard, as we did in 2006, we can turn out about 200 extra Dem votes, in a state where Democrats win or lose statewide races by only a few hundred or thousand votes. But turnout is low because we have a lot of young professionals in apartments who here from one election to the next and a lot of black working families who don't have habits of voting. None of these people will turn out to vote for Hillary, and only one of the precinct's active Dem canvassers is willing to work the neighborhood for Hillary, so there's 200 or so votes that Mark Warner won't be getting in Virginia if Hillary is on the ballot. I suspect my precinct is not unique in the nation in these regards.

I think you are all forgetting the likely outcome in the event of an Obama implosion (which currently seems the likely outcome). Suppose he barely touches out Clinton in NC, winning 90% of the black vote and 20% of the white (or whatever). Suppose Clinton beats him in Indiana by 9 points. Suppose also the polls continue to show him cratering.

If the superdelegates decide he can't win and they want Hillary to be the nominee, the likely outcome is *not* that they will throw their weight to Clinton. That would set the stage for self-absorbed melodramatic rants (cf Eudoxie) writ large across the nation.

No, someone will just go to Obama and say "We're worried about voting you out, but you can step down, citing the polls and the Wright situation. Don't, and you'll probably be the nominee. Then you better win. And you won't. And if you don't, your career is over."

He's got far more to lose than Clinton does. So if his polls continue their downward trend, and there's no end in sight, the logical move for the Dems is to convince Obama to step down. He will give a gracious speech. And everyone will move on.

BTW, Noam was correct that blacks are the only demographics the Democrats need to care about. Liberals and youth will do what they will.

matthawk -- great, great post.  

The only caveats:

(1)  Your point about HRC winning without having won the popular vote is a key point, as I've mentioned before.  The popular vote matters.  If HRC wins the nomination without having won the popular vote, all of Obama's supporters (young, black, wealthy, etc.) would have every right to be furious.  

(2)  This might not be popular to note in this crowd, but I'm not sure McCain is the first recent GOP leader to fight the racism in the GOP.  I tend to agree with the historians who George W. Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history, but the one good thing he did is try to aggressively challenge the racism within the GOP (in the primaries and also the general).  

(3)  Again, this might be unpopular, but I think it's better for the country and for groups within the country if both parties are competing for the votes of all races.  

Deep bow to eudoxie.  Thanks for that perspective.  Godspeed.

But, as it's been mentioned here once or twice already, African-Americans aren't the only people who resent and dislike Clinton, for various reasons, and who would find it nearly impossible to vote for her in November.

I *might* vote for her, because her party is about the only hope for some people who've been very badly injured by the troglodytes and the sadists of the incumbent party, but that's likely the *only* reason, and in the end it may, regrettably, not be enough.  She's a bad actor and she doesn't deserve the time of day, let alone the presidency.

It could very well come down to how much Obama wants it. If the superdelegates go to him and try to convince him he can't win, but he refuses to cave, it's his. There is no plausible answer she can make to convince people the right thing to do is to give it to her. And sure, some voters will come back to her, but no enough. We should all shake our heads clear of media noise and remember that OH, PA, and all the other "big" states she and the party honchos won for her have sizable African American populations, as well as those of us doomed to always be "disaffected liberals," not to mention the millions who believed Bill Clinton when he said too many Americans who "played by the rules" were always getting screwed.

DMehlhorn, I think think those are good points, particularly about W attempting to rise above race-baiting within the Republican Party. I was a little disappointed though, when he seemed to knuckle under on the issue of the "battle flag" in South Carolina. Where McCain initial took a straight-talker's position in saying that it did not belong in the civic life of contemporary American society, Bush was unwilling to comment on the issue, not wanting to alienate South Carolina voters apparently, but hinting about his own thoughts by saying "I think eventually they'll make the right decision."

I also did not mention that Bob Dole in 1996, with Jack Kemp as his running mate, attempted to change the culture of race-baiting within the Republican Party. So, you are right -- there are other examples besides McCain.

I think there are some real reasons to think that people will have difficulty supporting either nominee at the end of this process.  As many before me have pointed out, this has been a very long battle and Omaba has many more people supporting through a much longer primary battle than Dean ever had.  

Also, if Obama goes down it will be because Clinton manages to destroy him through negative ads, legal battles over Michigan and Florida delegates, and wrangling with the supers and convincing them to overturn the will of the voters.  Not exactly a feel-good formula for Obama supporters.

When Obama eventually wins, Clinton supporters will have to stop all the vehement arguments they've been making against Obama for the last several months, and turn around and support the guy... not very likely...

But beyond this, Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert gives some fascinating insights into happiness (or in this case satisfaction and enthusiasm for a candidate) from the world of Cognitive Psychology.  It's a very amusing and interesting 21 minutes and well worth the watch: www.ted.com/.../97

The Gist: The longer we have to make a decision, the LESS likely we are to be hapy with the decision we make.  Not what we'd expect, and certainly not what the SD's who still claim that the long fight is a "healthy debate".  

There has been some real damage done.  The Clinton folks will have a hard time fighting for Obama when he inevitably wins.  If Clinton manages to somehow win the nomination, she'll have a VERY hard time winning over Obama supporters.

Annabella2 , makes an excellent point that has also been in the back of mind: concerning the war and the economy, the Republicans broke it, I wouldn't mind seeing the saddled with having to try to fix it if Hillary is the nominee. The recession, the falling value of the dollar, the invasion of Iraq and the way it has added to instability in the Middle East and Central Asia; folks these problems are not going to go away easily. They are even less likely to go away if we have a president like Hillary, who will take her cues from neo-conservative foreign policy advisers and embassy diplomats rather than testing the mood on the streets as Obama has repeatedly suggested. Nor are our economic problems likely to go away if the we have the same Clintonian assumptions that contributed to the series of financial bubbles that are bursting all around us today. I am disturbed about the fact that Clinton does not seem to have even rethought some of her essential foreign and domestic policy assumptions.

So, yeah. If the Democrats have gotten too comfortable taking their most loyal constituencies for granted; and if it is time to give the Democrats some competition in order to open up the political process in general; and if one gets the added benefit forcing the Republicans to begin to address some of the problems that they have exacerbated over the past 8 years then, by all means, I have no problem mobilizing voters for McCain or Nadar in November to counter a Hillary coronation in mid-summer.

Another factual point here: polls indicate that both Obama and Hillary supporters will be upset with the other as nominee:

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/.../index.html

Enough of all this rending of garments.  In polls that have come out in the last 24 hours, Obama is up 22 points over McCain in New Jersey, he’s  up 9 points in PA, he's up anywhere from 5 to 14 to in North Carolina against Clinton (that Insider Advantage poll is a joke, it only has a 25% black turnout). He'll win NC and perhaps lose in Indiana, but May 6 will be a wash.  The primaries will be down to a handful of small states, with no chance of Hillary catching Obama in pledged delegates, and no reasonable hope of catching him in the national popular vote (which doesn't matter anyway, because the supers have not been considering that and will not consider that in casting their ballots).  Obama will pick up 30 to 40 supers in the days following May 6, and it will be over.

sheesh, you guys are such nervous nellies.  

In 2004 John Kerry came extremely close to winning, after the Swift-Boating, after a lackluster campaign in which he couldn't say anything in 10 words when 30 would do, and facing a president who still had substantial cachet as a wartime leader who knew what needed to be done to secure America.  In general terms, it's difficult to see how McCain, facing one of two good candidates (each better than Kerry) and much higher Dem voter registration can win, if Bush only just won in 2004.

In reality, however, he is going to have a much greater problem facing Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton, because Clinton will be the stimulus that will turn lukewarm Republican voters and activists, who aren't so keen on McCain at all, into a raving army of electoral passion.  Furthermore, it's very unlikely that independents will break for Clinton in November, and to push the numbers over the edge, as almost happened with Kerry in '04, one needs them.  Independents are not going to come out for Clinton.  With her, McCain has a serious chance.

In contrast, McCain's world will become a very scary place once Obama becomes the nominee.

You guys are seriously nuts.

What is the cause of all this incredibly vigorous vituperation concerning the mere chance that your preferred candidate might not receive the nomination?

This begs serious psychoanalysis as to why people are supporting Obama. And don't tell me it's simply because he's a better candidate.

Exactly what.... are you using Obama as a vector for? He is clearly something into which you have put a large part of yourselves, and now are acting as if you yourselves are threatened. Why is this and how has it come to be? And.... what does this say about the candidate himself?

dbarrr: Oh. Probably no nuttier than you. Collective psyche and its inquiry has been sorely neglected for the last half century plus. It is a really inconvenient subject and deserves some honest effort. Alas most of our modern day troubadours and depth psychology guys try to marry conventional laboratory logic to the subject and much of what is offered isn't particularly satisfying. Much of it seems to be politically provisional. Personally I dovetail some Jaynesian conclusions within the overarching scope of Jungian inquiry.

Its basically contends that the tensions and the will to resolve opposites govern perception and projection. Of course contingencies of individual type disposition will color cause and effect. It seems to me that Obama voters might entertain notions of some collective resolutions worthy of their attention and concerns.  

What do you think? Got any ideas? What do you offer up as a collective impetus? I can see good mental health is a concern of yours. Are you bringing any to the table? Anyway, thanks for your concern.

Hey y'all, because of my couple of campaign donations, I've been getting mass emails signed by an Obama campaign staffer named Katina Tsongas.  Anyone know whether she's related to the late Paul Tsongas?

Katina Tsongas is the daughter of Paul Tsongas; just one more political family member who knows all three viable candidates and has decided to support Obama. The others include all the Carter kids, Caroline Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, Maria Shriver, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan (I think), among others.

Dmelhorn,

I don't have time at this moment for a full response, but on the question about including FL:

The problem is that this is a corrupted outcome.  It was not held as an election, because the candidates and the public were all told that it did not have any standing for the nomination.  There is no way to tell who might have voted but did not bother because is was just an opinion poll.  Certainly retirees would have  been likely to vote disproportionately because it is a lot to ask of working people to vote in a meaningless contest.  We also have no idea what the impact would have been had the candidates been able to campaign.  Would Hillary have won? Probably.  But we really cannot say what the margin would have been.  There is no more reason to included FL than there would be to substitute current opinion polls for ballots already held.

FL was disenfranchised at the outset when its outcome was excluded by agreement of all concerned including Hillary.  It does not re-enfranchise the FL voters now to include corrupted numbers,  It disenfranchises FL voters who didn't bother in justified reliance on the fact that it was not an election and, worse, disenfranchises the voters in the rest of the country who have every right not to have corrupted totals changing the outcome of their legitimate votes.

When election outcomes are seriously corrupted, the practice in America is to throw the vote out.

In my opinion it would be legitimate for the supers to vote contrary to vote to ignore the outcome of the delegate selection process if the popular vote, in all legitimate primaries and caucuses, comes out about as far in favor of Hillary as the delegate count is in favor of Obama. I would consider that a split decision and therefore not compelling for the supers.  However, to accomplish that Hillary would have to pick up more than 700,000 net votes out of about 4.5 million yet to be cast.  That is more than a 15% margin.  If as is still likely Obama wins NC by more than 100,000, then Hillary needs to collect more than 800,000, probably closer to 850,000, out of the remaining 3.2 million or so.  That would be an average margin in all those remaining races, including those that Obama is expected to win, of more than 25%.  This is spectacularly unlikely.

What the Hillaristas are really pressing for is first the inclusion of FL and MI in order to mischaracterize the gap in the popular vote and then to argue that the delegate should also be ignored based on electability.  The electability argument is dubious, but even if it weren't, the party cannot spend half a billion on the primaries, bring more than 33 million voters to the polls, then tell them "We're sorry, but we disagree with you" and expect to have any party left.  The Dems would lose the White House and a lot of downticket races too.

The whole point of primaries is to have an outcome that the losing minority can accept as legitimate and therefore rally behind the candidate.  The outcome is accepted as legitimate because Americans accept that the winner of an election wins.  If that basic principle is overturned, the losers have no reason to accept the outcome as legitimate, and they won't.  Not by a longshot.

Finally, as a matter of practicality, the likelihood that the super-delegates, professional politicians all, would run these sorts of risks just to back Hillary is nil.  The supers can never be criticized for backing the candidate who has received the most delegates and popular votes because that outcome is per se legitimate.  As soon as they go outside of that safe harbor, they are begging for trouble and it would find them.

Dmelhorn,

It doesn't matter whether Hillary supporters will be upset if she loses.  If she loses, she loses and they can support the nominee or not.  If Obama loses, he loses.  The problem arises when Obama wins and is denied the nomination anyway.  There is a distinct asymmetry in your arguments.  

Let's just suppose Hillary were running against Edwards.  Hillary wins the primaries and caucuses but then is denied the nomination because the super delegates think Edwards is more electable.  The pick the white male over the first woman with a shot to be president even though she wins the races.  Let's even assume that everyone thinks Edwards would have an easier time against McCain.  What do you think would happen?  Let me tell you.  The Hillaristas would tear down the Denver convention center in their fury, and with good reason.  

Those Hillaristas who think Obama's supporters are intense on this subject should take an honest look in the mirror and ask themselves what they would be writing here if it were Edwards and Hillary and the shoe was on the other foot.

DMehlhorn  said:

roid, virginiacentrist, GSpinks, other fair-minded friends of Obama -- some questions for you:

Happy to oblige! Working links work a lot better than ellipses (...) :(

(1)  Why don't we include Florida in the popular vote tally?  

Interesting article. First, private fundraisers are allowed under the bylaws. Second, the reporter called it a "news conference", the actuality is that Obama was met by reporters outside his private fundraiser and agreed to answer some questions; this would not fall under the common sense definition for calling a news conference, and probably get you nowhere with Dean or the Bylaws committee.

Hillary did not have an option to agree; the decision is the sole responsibility of the Bylaw committee. There is room in the bylaws for appealing their decision; there is also room to seat the delegates anyway.

In allowing to seat the delegates anyway, they need to concoct a fair and representative method for awarding delegates; one that enfranchises all the democrats. The problem with the popular vote is, once again, that it does not "enfranchise" those democrats who accepted the DNC at their word and either did not turn out or went to the other primary. No matter what you say, you can't have the popular vote, 1.7 million means nothing.

No one (that has a say in the matter) told them their vote would count, either. In fact, they were told that they'd been stripped of all delegates. Also, there is nothing in the Bylaws, per se, regarding a candidate's opinions.

"Why would Democrats not at least take those votes into account in considering who won the popular vote?  " Again, the vote is skewed because they were told their vote didn't count, and a sufficiently significant portion of the people stayed home or went to the other primary. Unless you can enfranchise ALL dems in Florida, you are stuck with no dems.

Also, crucially, the DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE VOTED "NO" TO THE RESOLUTION. Having done so would have been perfect grounds for an appeal under the bylaws; in fact, the bylaws take that type of issue into account specifically, and call for reducing or eliminating the penalties accordingly. But I've heard NOTHING to indicate any democrats voted AGAINST it. Ironic? perhaps; conspiracy? doubt it.

Nuances are great, and we'd LOVE to have our people from MI and FL back into the mix, but it has to be by the rules. I've been well aware, for a long time, of the moving goal posts scenario presented to most minorities, the same scenario Hillary is executing now; its one of the reasons I'm a rules hawk.

(2)  At this stage, given the current facts, isn't the final popular vote important?  

The Super Delegates can take anything they want into consideration, this includes the "popular vote". In fact, tradition more or less demands that the Super Delegates follow the popular vote unless circumstances indicate that something different needs to happen; that is the purpose for the super delegates, to be able to step in and change the outcome if circumstances dictate that such a thing is necessary.

Obama's supers have all been very clear about why they have endorsed: citing either constituency or conscience (the two most legitimate reasons available)

Our point is, and always has been, that they had better not override the popular vote unless there is sufficient cause; like an attack of conscience. Analysts and Hillary have been tossing around "electability", but we aren't buying it (and obviously the supers are not either).

On the flip side, if he wins the overall popular vote, isn't that the end of the story and proof (alongside his pledged-delegate win, his strategic mastery of the caucus states, his rhetoric, his resilience in the face of Wright, etc.) that he deserves the nomination?  

(3) Aren't pledged-delegate totals the ONE thing that superdelegates can't consider?  

The supers can consider whatever they want, technically. The will of the people is a great start, if they like their careers. Conscience, and best judgments are a good second, if they can defend their position well enough to the populace.

They exist as a fail-safe against a tightly contested primary, or perhaps not so tightly contested primary, where the inevitable winner screws the pooch somehow; they provide a mechanism for "over riding" the popular vote if circumstances warrant such a thing.

(4)  Are you sure that Barack is the underdog?  

Barack has always been the underdog. He shot ahead for a bit because as the underdog he was able to stand up and make his point and gain momentum behind everyone's back. He shot ahead in the polls for a while, until everyone else ramped up and brought him back down to earth. I'd like to point out that Hillary has had 20+ point leads in polls in OH, TX, and PA.

The media has not overwhelming opposed Hillary at any point: CNN stands for Clinton News Network, they can't jock her hard enough.

The only thing I have seen that is close to misogyny is some Dem Leaders that suggested she should step down and cede now. Unless you can cite some legitimate stories, we'll leave it at that.

Monetary advantage only goes so far, and it doesn't prove misogyny. It does not even buy votes, for that matter. It buys face time, which is critical for a relative unknown like Obama to make up for the lack of familiarity, a distinct Clinton advantage which most MSM keep forgetting to talk about.

I don't know if she had this campaign handed to her; but I definitely feel as though she's been acting as though she's entitled to the nomination. This feeling is especially bitter when she starts "moving the goal posts".

Obama started with no advantages, just an idea; his current advantages have all been "earned" since his announcement.

Clinton started out the race as "The Former First Lady of the United States", this is name recognition and familiarity that could never be bought. Case in point, there are still people who don't know Obama is the jr. senator from Illinois, despite his "outspending hillary 3 to 1" nonsense. Recognition is one advantage you simply cannot downplay, especially in states like PA.

The only thing Hillary needs to overcome is her own ego; if she can acccomplish that, and lock it up convincingly in the remaining primaries, she will get the nod. Otherwise, bupkiss.

(5)  Can we stop with the "stealing the election" rhetoric?  

Not really. Obama has shown a significant portion of the populace that we can demand decency, honesty and fairness from our politicians; we are going to continue doing that whether Hillary likes it or not.

"What is the cause of all this incredibly vigorous vituperation concerning the mere chance that your preferred candidate might not receive the nomination?"

Wouldn't be so terrible to have Hillary as the nominee but for the fact that the only foreseeable circumstances under which she could become the nominee would be unacceptable. It's the difference between having your candidate lose an election (which is merely upsetting) and having your candidate win the election and have the office taken from him anyway. Kenya wouldn't have rioted if Kibaki had actually won instead of rigging it.

There is a lot of outrage expressed in these posts.  The only constituency that has any justification, in my mind at least, is the black folks whose understanding of this election is brilliantly explained by Eudoxie.  And it saddens  and depresses me that he's right about how blacks should feel.  Unfortunately, I think the rest of us are wrong in blaming Hillary Clinton for this state of affairs.  We have a contradiction built into the Democratic Party coalition and it is the one that helped stall the civil rights movement before it could be completed.  That is, educated whites coopted the energy and tactics of the civil rights leaders for their own purposes, namely opposition to the Vietnam War and the movement for equality for women, gays and other groups in our society.  Martin Luther King recognized that this was happening and it is the reason that he "betrayed" LBJ by coming out against the War and why he was trying to shift his agenda to an economic argument that would include white working folks in his movement.  He came to recognize the fundamental importance of economics to the success of the civil rights movement.  We can only dream about what our politics might look like now had he not been murdered.

It is to these educated whites that Obama speaks, not intentionally I think, but because they respond most readily to the argument for "change," whereas working class whites are interested in bread and butter.  Clinton speaks to them.   They are two of the three primary constituencies, black folks being the third, in the Democratic Party that Republicans can never adequately represent.  They don't really want to represent any of our constituencies.  Does anyone believe that a Republican South, which is what we got when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, would be representative of black folks interests?  Right now, all of us are talking past one another, blaming the candidates for our own failure to figure out how to knit our constituencies comfortably together.  In my mind, the educated whites for whom Obama resonates most effectively have to let him begin speaking to working class whites, because he can't win in November without them.  They have to let him come down from the lofty rhetoric and guazy ideals and give working people some bread and butter.  That means we have to recognize the interests of our partners in the Democratic coalition and we, meaning we educated white folks, have to sacrifice some of our wants and desires for the good of those who don't have the advantages we have had.  And maybe we should begin advocating for labor unions, opposition to Republican style trade agreements, etc.  That is, maybe we should worry less about transformation of our politics and focus on an economic argument.  Obama hasn't had problems speaking to working class whites in Illinois and I would bet that would be the case nationally.  

Again, I think black folks are the only people who are justified in their passion about this election.  The rest of us have to try to help them and that means we need to think clearly.  Protest votes simply make no logical sense given what the Republicans stand for and how serious are our prolblems.  I hope this is helpful.

Whose editing the front page?!

The label for this post is entirely misleading, and again, does more as a push-headline than the content.

Obviously, obviously, if Obama completely self imploded people would get over it, that's kind of in the definition of "self-implode".  The question is whether this idle speculation is good or bad for the party at this point.  

It seems TNR is turning into just another easily manipulated media outlet, being spoon fed the horse race story line to keep the Clintons on life support.  

Further to which, this type of argument is absurd on face.  The logic that Hillary should stay in the race "just in case" can be pushed ad infinitum.  How insulting to Obama is it to let her campaign corpse hang around until November "just in case".  Could anything else be a clearer demonstation of a lack of confidence in the nominee than to keep the vanquished foe lying around "just in case"?   Could you EVER imagine the republicans doing this?

Again and again and again, the Dems demonstrate they don't have the will to make tough decisions.  This is just the latest in a terrifying long chain.  

If Obama goes down because of the fact that we let the Clintons hang around "just in case", and AS A RESULT OF letting them hang around,  "in case" finally happens, I am done with the Dems and politics in general.  In the meantime, TNR can continue to publish essays and posts with the pretext of "well aren't we clever" while contributing to the surrender of 08 and the political death of the only inspring Dem in a generation.  Whistling past the graveyard the whole time.

"If Obama goes down because of the fact that we let the Clintons hang around "just in case", and AS A RESULT OF letting them hang around,  "in case" finally happens, I am done with the Dems and politics in general."

This is stupid. Kennedy hung around until the convention; Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, all also-ran who had won fewer delegates and states than Hillary has won to date, had hung around until the convention and I do not recall anyone in the Dem party or in the press clamoring for them to butt out. This blatant double-standard in how Hillary has been treated accounts for why this race is still being contested this late in the game: Obama was treated with kids' gloves while Hillary was being constantly pilloried and, AS A RESULT, Obama easily cruised to a string of victories that got us where we are today. Then a critical lens was finally trained on Obama, and just like that, his "mystique" evaporated to reveal an increasingly wobbly and very vulnerable candidate. The superdels have the benefit of seeing a "vetted" Obama and, in order for them to be relevant and justify their existence, they will need to decide on the basis of  which candidate would have the best chance to bring home the bacon against. At this point, it is looking increasingly like Obama is not the One. May 6 is likely to be the tipping point, and I hope that Obama would recover in time to prevent the unthinkable from happening: A loss in NC...

Annabella2 needs to pop a few Ginko bilobas and grow a brain.  

rmabbott,

As far as I am concerned, Obama can say whatever he damn pleases to whatever constituency he wants so long as he wins the election in November.  I am not one of those who demands some sort of rhetorical purity from candidates as that is usually self-defeating.  I am convinced that Obama is a genuine progressive.  At this point, I want him to use the most effective tactics available to him.

This morning the New York Times, which is hardly ahead of stories like these, has the Clinton campaign more or less acknowledging not only that it will not catch up in delegates but that it will not catch up in popular votes either, certainly not without the bizarre inclusion of the tally in MI.  I am sure that they don't like having to admit this, but the alternative is to keep up the spin that they can win until the end and be left high and dry because the facts do not accord with the spin they have been spinning.  Hence, they are trying to bring the spin more in line with the obvious reality NOW so that they can spin a new argument, not that they can actually win the primaries, but that the primary result should be ignored because Hillary is, by her own lights, more "electable."

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!  I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!  I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!  I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!

Let's see a show of hands from the Hillaristas and the TNR editors (other than Zvika Krieger who has already told us he thinks the supers can ignore the delegate count and popular vote and give it to Hilllary anyway):  

How many of you think that Hillary should get the nomination even if she loses the delegate race AND the popular vote, something that the Clinton campaign is now acknowledging to be the most likely outcome?

The Times also reports that there is no evidence that the super-delegates are buying Hillary's argument that they can or should ignore the will of the voters.  They think the winner wins, even those from conservative districts that do not support Obama.  I seem to recall having said this about 1,000 times too.  

Finally, for the nth time, I personally would have had no problem with Hillary running until she dropped if she had it in her to run a "Huckabee" campaign that did not disparage her Democratic opponent.  But she couldn't.  She needed to state here opinion that Obama is not fit to be president.  That put her into Joe Lieberman territory.  

So, what happens now?  

dcshungu and nturner,

Go read the NY Times.  The handwriting is on the wall and is so clear that even the two of you should be able to read it.  The Clinton campaign is now acknowledging that it is not going to win either the pledged delegate race OR the popular vote.  Game over.

The curtain is about to ring down on your act along with Hillary's.  Careful not to smack into pccostello, jmkerr, etc. as you head for the exit.

Roi,

Great post on what the mood would be if HRC was winning and the supers awarded Edwards the nomination.  It would be Thunderdome on these pages and in the party.

Brilliant!

roidubouloi  said:

"Go read the NY Times.  The handwriting is on the wall and is so clear that even the two of you should be able to read it.  The Clinton campaign is now acknowledging that it is not going to win either the pledged delegate race OR the popular vote.  Game over."

'ROIDS

I read the Times piece and it did not say that we did not know already. The pledged delegate story was already known. The pop vote, well, that depends on whether Obama's collapse is complete and he loses NC on Tuesday...

Every time you and Chait have called the "game over", Hillary's "Quixotic Quest" got a new life. So, please, go on and say it louder: GAME OVER!

dbarr - you're a very standard Hillary supporter with your questioning the emotional health of anyone voting for Obama, while offering not a syllable of a concrete, non-Obama bashing case for your voting Hillary.  Talk about a cult.  

I support Barack Obama because his S