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 Senate record shows courage, rather than the non-stop right wing boot licking of Hillary.  

Perhaps you really do think the Constitution needs to be ammended to ban flag burning, perhaps you really do support the banking-lobbyist-written bankrupcy bill, which primarily harms the poor and middle class who go backrupt from doctor bills (I'm sure our girl, h health care expert, knows that), perhaps you think it was fine to confirm Al Gonzales as AG after his stellar performance as Bush's torture toad, perhaps you do think Condi Rice should get Democratic votes for confrmation as Sec of State with her stellar record as National Secrity Advisor ushering in the Iraq War (Obama voted against confirmation for both of them as well as John Roberts).  

Perhaps these are, in fact, your values.  Perhaps you really do think campaigns financed by big pharma, big food, the oil and banking industries - lke your candidate, is better than by the people - like mine candidate.  Perhpaps these things inspire you.  

If not, perhaps you can deign to clarify for us an actual positive case for your candidate, based on concrete votes, concrete experience rather than displaying your shallowness for us all to see.

Who knows, maybe these sorts of votes and corporate financial support inspire you. If so, you should join the Republican party where you should feel much more at home.  HIllary should too.

The prevailing narrative at TNR is a pro-race one favoring Obama.  Noam’s editorial ignited a dialogue about how African Americans would be lost from the Democratic party if Obama didn’t get the nod, how Obama has suffered because of his race or race “games” played against him.  There is nothing wrong with this.  I think its fine.  We’ll make progress on an issue that our country has a poor record on.

What troubles me is what has happened to the gender narrative, including the sentiments about it—expressed directly and indirectly – here at TNR.  Advocates of Obama’s here and elsewhere use long-standing stereotypes about women to trash Hillary.  She is called a “whiner,” conniving, distrustful, and someone who will do anything to get elected.  

How many feminist scholars have effectively pointed out that labeling women’s speech as “whining” is a way to trivialize their voices?  Tons.  Sexists have claimed the so-called feminine characteristics of being conniving or distrustful are so fundamental to women’s essence, we can trace them to their biography and weaker emotional state.   And my personal favorite is that “women will do anything” to get what they want.  This implies an immorality on their part, yet women are always held to a higher moral standard than men.  That could be what’s at play here with Hillary.  After all, would the 3am ad have been so offensive had it come from a male opponent?   The gender double standard is playing out in our faces every day with Hillary’s candidacy.  

A few days ago, Wandrey asked me to point out one instance where Obama had been negative against Hillary.  My TNR friend he has used this sexist narrative to frame her entire candidacy.  At every turn, he calls her someone who will do anything to get elected, implies that she is immoral (conniving etc.), and has trivialized her speech in a debate as “whining.”  That’s a lot of negativity, but it doesn’t compare to that expressed here at the TNR blogs lately.

So I issue a call to all here to think carefully about the tactics you use to shore up support for Obama’s candidacy and navigate a pro-race agenda.  Your objective can be achieved without playing into sexist narratives about women.  And trust me, this is not just about Hillary herself.  I fully expect that same narrative to be invoked with the next female candidate.  Do people think any differently about Pelosi, Hutchinson, Sebelius, Rice?  Probably not.

Point: we don’t have to use an anti-woman narrative to advance the pro-race cause and VISA-VERSA.

dcshungu,

It is not enough to carry the Times around under your arm.  You have to read it.

Hillary's campaign to nowhere has had "continued life" because she and people like you live in a fantasy world.  Nothing Mr. Chait or I or a thousand others like me was going to get you to abandon your fantasies.  You cling to them even now.  Enjoy them in the brief time you have left!

I got a real good laugh reading this from you,  "I read the Times piece and it did not say that we did not know already. The pledged delegate story was already known."  It is only a very short time ago that you Hillarista fantasist were trumpeting PA as the proof that Hillary could win the delegate race.  Then the Clinton campaign, a bare week ago, finally acknowledged that this was impossible.  Then the line became that she could still win the popular vote.  That was your party line for the past week or so.  Now, for the first time, the Clinton campaign has acknowledged that this isn't possible and you write that  it was "already known."

Absolutely, dcshungu.  It was already known -- weeks ago -- to those of us who retain even some loose connection to the real world.  And now that that Hilllary Central Committee has changed the party line, you retrospectively declare it old news, because, of course, Hillary and you cannot be ever seen to acknowledge that the spin you have been peddling for weeks is complete bullshit -- which it is.

You remind me of nothing so much as the old hard-line Stalinists who were perfectly happy to declare that the truth was whatever Uncle Joe declared the party line to be on a given day.  And if the party line changed the next day to the exact opposite, they would declare not only the new party line, but that, obviously, this had always been the party line, nothing has changed.

Like I said, enjoy your time in Hillary spin-world for the few brief moments you have left.  Reality is knocking.

"I support Barack Obama because his Senate record shows courage"...

With all due respect, but which record is that? He started running for POTUS after barely completing half a term in the senate. You knew nothing about Obama when you went gaga over his sophomoric utterings. His paper-thin senate record does NOT justify the near Confucian wisdom and mysticism that his supporters have endowed him with. He ran on "good judgment" except that his judgment is now in question as a result of his association with this pastor, who he first said he could not disavow any more than he could disavow his grandma and had contented that the good pastor's bigoted rants had been taken out contest until the whole world got to see and hear it on live TV from the horse's own mouth, what Obama surely must have heard hundreds of time over their 20-year relationship. Then, get this, he expressed "shock" at what he heard. Yeah, right.

Give us a break. We haven't drunk enough kool-aid yet...

"It is only a very short time ago that you Hillarista fantasist were trumpeting PA as the proof that Hillary could win the delegate race."

No supporter of Hillary's with an ounce of gray matter between the ears would make such a ludicrous assertion. With the Dems' bizarre delegate apportionment rules, which have brought us to the brink of this precipice, it was evident to everyone in Hillary's camp and to his lucid supporters that she would never make up the pledged delegate deficit. Intellectual honesty is always a good place to start any debate...

As for the rest of your post, well, it is no different than your false assertion about pledged delegates, i.e.,  it speaks for itself.

The truth of the matter is this - right now Obama supporters have a much easier time saying they would support Hillary; he'll be the nominee barring some disaster.  Hillary supporters on the other hand, have to convince the supers that they won't vote for him in order for her to have a chance of getting the nomination.  I suspect if the overall picture begins to change though, you may see a lot more bitterness out of Obama supporters than you do right now.

GSpinks,

Great post.  Sorry about the links.  The only points I'll dispute:

(1)  Your assessment of the media bias and existing advantages.  Yes, Hillary has had some advantages, but you don't have to be an ultra-feminist to notice that words and arguments attacking Hillary as a woman have been used against Hillary, in public, which would not have been used against a black or Hispanic candidate.  Although I don't agree with the tone of the column in its entirety, some good examples can be found in Robin Morgan's column "Goodbye to all that" at womensmediacenter.com.   Again, I think Obama is a great candidate, but people can support and vote for Obama and still be sensitive to the incredible and unfair abuse Hillary has taken.  

(2)  The "steal the election" rhetoric.  The possibility that has the pro-Obama team concerned is if superdelegates bolt for Hillary in overwhelming numbers.  That is their right under the current legitimate structure.  The possibility that has the pro-Clinton team concerned is the idea, as virginiacentrist conceded, that team Obama has gotten away with character assassination but it hasn't been a level playing field because she's been constrained in her ability to respond.  Neither of these concerns rises to the level of ballot-stuffing or voter-intimidation or mis-reporting of votes, which are the types of crimes that can be accurately called "stealing the election."  Let's save those poisonous words for actual electoral fraud, a la Kenya.  

dcshungu,

The whole Hillarista clan in these pages has been making the claim that Hillary can win the delegate race.  Just after the "great victory" in PA, this swelled to a crescendo, until that is Hillary Central Committee admitted the obvious.  I must have written a dozen or more posts write after PA pointing out to all the Hillarista spin-meisters that PA was actually where Hillary finally LOST the race, both for the delegate vote and for the popular vote, because she hadn't done nearly well enough to make more than a little scratch.  Are you now saying that your fellow Hillaristas don't have an ounce of gray matter between the ears?

Since you belatedly think that "intellectual honesty" has some value, please explain why you believe that, even though Hillary loses the delegate race and the popular vote, she should none-the-less be the party's nominee.  For extra credit, explain why the professional politicians who comprise the super-delegates would be persuaded by your argument and would be willing to risk both the obvious conclusion that they had over-ruled the will of the voters and the massive defections from the party that might very well follow from that perception.

Come on, you can do it.  Even your mention of intellectual honesty suggests that you can repent your sins.  Whenever you are ready, you can be forgiven and rejoin the rest of us here in reality.

Tammy,

The other side of the feminist coin is that only Hillary could CRY during the race and say that running for POTUS is really hard and not get blown out of the water because she is a woman.

Complaining that running for POTUS is hard is whining not an attack on women.

odanukil,

It does not matter at all whether the super-delegates believe that Hillary's supporters will abandon the party.  In any nomination battle, the risk is always present that the losers will not be reconciled.  Virtually the entire purpose of using primaries to select the candidate is precisely to increase the chances that the losers will be reconciled by tapping into the deepest of American political tradition:  People accept that outcome of fair elections because they are regarded as being the fairest way to make a decision when someone must win and someone must lose.

The super-delegates cannot control the supporters on either side, but they know perfectly well -- because they are all professional politicians -- that their best hope for party unity, even if it is a frail hope, is in coming down on the same side as the voters.  Conversely, they know that over-turning the will of the voters for any but the most clear and compelling reasons would likely fracture the party by abandoning the core value of American democracy.  

If you have read today's Times, it is reported that the super-delegates appear almost uniformly unpersuaded by Hillary's arguments that she can lose the primaries but should be the nominee anyway.  This is the reason why.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this story is true, Mrs. Clinton should be expelled from the Democratic Party.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

Or she could take Sidney Blumenthal behind the cowshed and feed him to the woodshredder.

(Peter Dreier alleges that Sidney Blumenthal is distributing right-wing talking points to opinion-makers and journalists.  Even for Perjury Blumenthal, this is beyond comprehension.)

I used to be a supporter of Mrs. Clinton's; almost all my friends started as Clinton supporters.  I don't know anyone who remains in her camp.  Those remaining supporters of Mrs. Clinton here, if you want to know why we defected, it was not any sort of Messiah complex or rhetorical persuasion by Mr. Obama.  It is nausea about these tactics.  And this, from a woman who knows how many skeletons she's got in her multi-million dollar closets, and who knows that Obama could have buried her and her husband in shit, but chose not to.  Ugh.

Now this has become visceral for me.

"The whole Hillarista clan in these pages has been making the claim that Hillary can win the delegate race.  Just after the "great victory" in PA, this swelled to a crescendo, until that is Hillary Central Committee admitted the obvious. "

This is mindless and really sad commentary...

PA transformed the race so much that not even Chait has returned to writing his serial screed pushing for Hillary to drop out. What I am sensing is angst among Obama supporters. Once more, if Obama is so inevitable, why do you keep hyperventilating in pushing the notion that it was a done deal? If he is going to win, so be it? May 6 is not that far off...

Greg.  The fact that you even bring up the crying thing is proof of the double standard.  Your ilk has read that as a deliberate feminine tactic to "secure the nomination by any strategy."  

My attention was caught especially by this scurrilous piece of Clintontrash parading as campaigning for the nomination of the Democratic Party:

"Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii."

If any of you supporters of Clinton has a shred of decency, I'd like to see you denounce, reject, revile, renounce - take your Clintonian parsed verb - Blumenthal for this.  For a Democratic candidate to trash another by proxy using a high school acquaintance with an alleged Communist is just too much.

tammy,

There is no doubt that there are sexists and that some of what Hillary has faced is a sexist refusal to accept a woman as president.  There is equally no doubt that there are racists and that some of what Obama has faced is a racist refusal to accept a black as president.

However, you are playing the sexism card.  The very unfortunate thing for the feminist narrative of this campaign is that Hillary is an extremely poor choice to be the first woman candidate for president.  From a progressive point of view, her voting record in the senate is awful.  It does not take a very keen observer of the political scene to note that she has used her senate seat solely as a platform from which to run for president which she has apparently understood as requiring her to suck up to the Republican right-wing.  When she complains that "the boys" are ganging up on her, she is in fact whining and behaving in a manner unbecoming for a prospective president who is expected to face down real enemies.  Similarly when she starts crying because it is "so hard" on her to be portrayed negatively.  come on.  Any male candidate who had done either of those two things would have been political toast instantly.  It is not to Hillary's credit at all that she has actually exploited sexism in this way to shield herself from criticism.  Obama has studiously avoided -- indeed fiercely resisted -- being portrayed as the candidate of blacks.  Hillary has repeatedly done the opposite, summoning her supporters to a feminist revival meaning to rescue a flagging campaign.  The reaction to the 3 am commercial if it had been run by a man would have been derisive laughter that would have sunk any man's candidacy.  It would have been worse than the photo of Dukakis looking like Snoopy riding in that tank

Nor has Hillary done feminism any good by pretending to experience she does not have.  I realize that, for a certain strand of feminist thought, the notion is that Hillary is supposed to be "credited" with the time during which she abandoned the career she might have had in order to support Bill's political career and that this time should "count" as if she herself were having a political career.  Whatever might be said of that theory of seniority in the competition for 2nd vice president at Microsoft, it won't wash when the office in question is president of the United States.  You don't get credit for having done the things you might have done but didn't do, arguably due to a sexist culture.  But what is even worse is the pretense. "I have 35 years of experience."  Indeed, so does everyone over the age of 35.  But experience at what?  I mean, really, what the hell are intelligent people supposed to think when Hillary Clinton says things like, "Senator McCain has crossed the commander-in-chief threshold.  I have crossed the commander-in-chief threshold.  Senator Obama has not yet crossed the commander-in-chief threshold."  This is so patently absurd that Hillary makes both herself and feminism look ridiculous at the same time.

By continuing to deny Hillary Clinton's very real flaws as a candidate, a politician, a representative of the left, and a human being, you do not do feminism any service.  You don't thereby make Hillary's situation sympathetic.  You make feminism less sympathetic.  You ask us to deny the evidence of our eyes and ears in the service of feminism.  And, no, I do not hold remotely the same opinions of Boxer, Feinstein, Sibelius, Rice, Golda Meir, Margaret Thacher, Angelika Merkel, or a whole host of other women political leaders that I do of Hillary Clinton.

I dislike Hillary Clinton's politics.  I am appalled by her political behavior.  I think that even for a politician she is dishonest.  In the time of her service as my  senator, I have seen too much evidence that she does not care about the success of the Democratic party but only about the success of Hillary Clinton, at our expense if need be.  I do not accept Hillary Clinton as a worthy representative of my party.

dcshungu,

Angst?  Yes, about the return of Wright, sure, because he is a liability, one that will be overcome, but a liability that has to be overcome.  

But angst about the second coming of Hillary Cliinton?  No, like you say.  May 6 is not far away.  But I don't kid myself for one second that after Obama wins in NC you are going to say, "Well then, it is time for Hillary to stop bashing Obama because he is the presumptive candidate of the Democratic party."  Nor do I imagine for one second that you will acknowledge that Obama is the presumptive candidate.  You will have a new spin on how and why Hillary can and will and should win even as she loses.

Since you enjoyed it so much the first time, let me remind for its evident truth,

The whole Hillarista clan in these pages has been making the claim that Hillary can win the delegate race.  Just after the "great victory" in PA, this swelled to a crescendo, until that is Hillary Central Committee admitted the obvious.  I must have written a dozen or more posts write after PA pointing out to all the Hillarista spin-meisters that PA was actually where Hillary finally LOST the race, both for the delegate vote and for the popular vote, because she hadn't done nearly well enough to make more than a little scratch.

Have a nice day!

Tammy,

The double standard is on HRC's side.  NO MALE candidate could EVER cry about how hard running for POTUS and last through the week.  It is simply not possible.  I happen to think having emotions is a human characteristic of both sexes, but in politics males can not reveal their own.

HRC has hurdles that she must clear, just as a Black, 1-term Senator with a Muslim-sounding name.  

Whining about those hurdles is the problem.

As far as my "ilk" I have no idea what you mean, complaining about the process and the "rules of the party" and how winning does not matter in securing the nomination is whining in my book and does not trivialize HRC because she is a woman, but because she is an incompetent politician.

Also HRC's campaign of utilizing the "kitchen sink" is the very epitome of doing whatever it takes to win.  She wants to ignore vote totals, delegate totals and any other sane measure of winning the nomination, please explain how this is not a win at any cost strategy for my "ilk"

Tammy says:

"Greg.  The fact that you even bring up the crying thing is proof of the double standard.  Your ilk has read that as a deliberate feminine tactic to "secure the nomination by any strategy." "

Sorry.  It is the fact that Hillary could get away with this, indeed gain votes with women, is the proof of a double standard.  Feminists want Hillary to be taken seriously as a legitimate candidate for president the equal of any male candidate -- I do, I just think she is the wrong person -- but at the same time would like her to have license to behave in ways that would be regarded as totally unacceptable for any male candidate for president because she is a woman.

If Hillary were shedding a tear thinking about the young men and women she helped to send to death in Iraq, I might think otherwise.  The fact that she was crying for herself and "how hard" it is to be Hillary Clinton running for president ought to embarrass any convinced feminist.  Do you want the world to accept that women can do the same jobs as men, just as well or better, or don't you?

Icarus,

Read your huffington link.

That's Hillary.  All dirt, all the time, while complaining about how hard it is for her to be the subject of media attacks and popular dislike.  She has earned every bit of her 54% unfavorability rating and more.

I think Hillary is the victim of some kind of political Stockholm syndrome.  She was so much the target of the VRWC for so long that she became one of them.

castor:

interesting points...I would just like to point out that Hillary really does represent a historical candidacy, and she should be given every opportunity to follow through.

I demand no less than that for Obama (fortunately not an issue at this time), and I will brook no less for Hillary (even if I am bitter). She is not mathematically eliminated, and therefore has no reason to consider dropping out.

Now, if we can just get her to stop trying to spin everything and just run an election and debate the "real" issues, I'd be happy. If someone could get her to stop biting off of Obama's stump speeches and talking points, i'd be ecstatic.

Why isn't a man allowed to cry? That is very dehumanizing to men and unfair and I mean that seriously.  Both sexes have thier crippling socialization and no one way should be privledged.

Greg and Roid.  You are so sure that Hillary deliberately cried in NH to invoke gender sympathy.  They key to your claim is her intention, not the outcome.  The reason you impute this intention is because the pro-Obama narrative- including the candidate himself-- constructs her an conniving.  It wouldn't work otherwise.

In any event, if in fact Hillary consciously plays the "gender" card, she does it far less often that Obama plays the race card.  Wilent pointed that out in his TNR piece, which has been discounted by so many pro-Obama people here.  Gives you the idea of what Hillary and her supporters are up against.

p.s. could a male candidate be charged with using the "kitchen sink?"  Or is "kitchen" only a metaphor for women only?

The claim that I do feminism a disservice is hogwash.

p

GSpinks,

If Hillary were able to run without the dirt, that would be fine.  But she can't and as a result legitimizes Republican tactics and smears.  PLUS, the smears she uses have much more bite than do when they come from Republicans because she is, in theory at least, a fellow Democrat.

I demand that she desist.  If she cannot desist, I demand that she withdraw.  If she is willing to declare her Democratic unfit to be president, as she has, then I feel morally bound as a good Democrat to use my voice to punish her as best I can, to diminish her popularity, and to force her from the race at the earliest possible moment.

That's why.

Wow, this got lengthy, didn't it?

Is there another issue to consider, besides race, gender, cheating, all the others above?  Thinking of this quote from the artcile:

"But, then, the hunger for change is much bigger than it was back in 2004."

Well, yes, but If Clinton is the nominee, what change will be offered?  She's already piggybacked on McCain so many times I'm beginning to wonder if she's angling to be his running mate.  You don't think the GOP won't use that against her in a general election campaign?  

Since this primary has turned so little on substantial policy points (it's almost a relief to have the gas-tax flap come along to articulate a clear policy difference between Clinton and Obama) one of the main things that's going to stick from the primary is her belittling of Obama in comparison to McCain and to those instances where she glommed on to McCain talking points.  I can't help but think that won't come back to haunt her.

Of course, as an Obama supporter who only drifted there after Biden and Edwards got eliminated (and who only registered as a Democrat less than a year ago), I can think of some other reasons Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton.  Those of us cursed to live in red states have already been informed by the Clinton spin machine that our votes don't really matter, presumably indicating that Clinton won't seriously contend for our states in November if she's the nominee.  So no point in my voting for her, right?  (No, moving to Pennsylvania or Ohio is not an option, and I just got the hell out of Florida and have no intention of going back.)  Further, a lot of Obama's support is tied to Obama, not to the party--think of all the new Democratic voter registrations touted over the course of this campaign.  It shouldn't be presumed they will remain Democrats if they perceive they're being shafted.  

Tammy,

No, Hillary's intentions are not the sole relevant point, although I personally believe that the whole thing was a deliberate manipulation because that would be most in character for Hillary Clinton.  Either way,  if a male candidate were publicly shedding tears about "how hard" it is to run for president, contrived or not, he would be laughed off stage.  Just as he would if he ran that 3 am commercial.  

I find your claim that Hillary exploits her gender far less that Obama does his race absolutely, totally risible.

"Kitchen sink" is a long established metaphor in American English:  "He threw everything but the kitchen sink" impliedly only because it is attached and couldn't be thrown.  When you throw everything including the kitchen sink, that is everything.

For what it's worth, tammy, I think you make feminism look silly, childish, and, yes, whiny too.  If you don't think that is a disservice, have at it.  You can continue to give the "feminist reading" of the election campaign.  A little close textual analysis would be good too.  And something about the "discursive space" we inhabit.  

But, please, next time a woman runs for president, let it be someone who did not get where she is just because of whom she married.  There are plenty of women in politics who can legitimately take credit on their own for what they have achieved.  

Say there cspencef,

I came to Obama via Biden and Edwards too.  But there cannot be that many of us since there were so fe Biden supporters to begin with.

Tammy -

the Clinton campaign ITSELF called what they were going to do to Obama post Iowa "The Kitchen Sink" no big bad mean guys did that, SHE did it.  

I honestly hope you can see why this crying sexsm stuff becomes easily made fun in casees like this, when even her own words, her own strategies, are somehow turned in to a sinister bias campaign.  The dishonesty of not holding her accountable means she simply responsible for nothing.  Its beyond annoying.  No wonder people lash out.

Also no one is saying she forced herself to cry (although it says alot about how mistrusted she is in general that so many people - including many women I know - assume she did), what's being said is:

ONLY A WOMAN COULD NOT HAVE HER CAMPAIGN DESTROYED BY IT AND EVEN WIN BECAUSE OF IT.

This is not a bias against her, its a bias in favor of her!!!!  

I'd say its time to retire the victimology around Hillary, its just not supportable with facts,

Roid.  Cut you a deal- I'll dump the gender narrative when you dump the race one.  Still no acknowledgement about Obama playing the race card from you.  You are sticking very close to Obama talking points.  I bet you were/are a fine pol strategist.  I gotta go teach class- civil rights and criminal law.  To be continued...maybe.... or not... have a great weekend.  

nturner - I just want to save you the keystrokes to responding to my posts - you are such an offensive, ignorant moron I haven't read you for months.  Skip my things too, I do not read you and never will.  Its a waste of valuable eyeball juice to even pass over your excretions.

DMehlhorn said:

(1)  I see what you mean about the sexism. I've not heard of many of these things; but then again some of these incidents may be relatively old. Hopefully they are dealt with now, and I expect my favorite candidate to continue to take appropriate stances if anything new comes up.

(2)  The "steal the election" rhetoric.  The possibility that has the pro-Obama team concerned is if superdelegates bolt for Hillary in overwhelming numbers.  That is their right under the current legitimate structure.

It is their right, but its our right to let them know who is going to get our next vote if we don't approve of their endorsements. Of course, this has been happening all over the grid...whats-her-name from Minnesota has had all sorts of people let her know about their next vote since endorsing Obama.

The possibility that has the pro-Clinton team concerned is the idea, as virginiacentrist conceded, that team Obama has gotten away with character assassination but it hasn't been a level playing field because she's been constrained in her ability to respond.

LOLZ! You can call it an assassination, but allow me to unspin the story like this: I've seen Obama stand up for Clinton on some things during his stump speeches, and even "apologized" for some almost gaffe that I never heard about and still don't really understand what it was, but I'm still waiting to see her pass up a chance at taking a dig at Obama (<WONK>and don't get me started about "not qualified to be Commander-In-Chief" business, especially since he meets all the requirements for running that have been set forth in the rulebook, and there is no such thing as "prior experience" as a president unless you are the incumbent...</WONK>)

Neither of these concerns rises to the level of ballot-stuffing or voter-intimidation or mis-reporting of votes, which are the types of crimes that can be accurately called "stealing the election."  Let's save those poisonous words for actual electoral fraud, a la Kenya.  

Actually, those are valid concerns, with reports of various incidents during every election cycle (not sure what ever actually happens to those reports), and they are things that we should watch for very carefully in our own districts. I distinctly recall several voting machines in PA which were shown to have come preloaded with hundred of vote for Bush in '04 (fortunately, I believe they were able to eliminate the illigitimate votes without much fuss).

As for "stealing the election", everything I've heard to-date has been more like "stealing" the nomination, using the word "stealing" to simplify the drawn out explanation for winning the nomination without the lead in popular votes or pledged delegates and without a popular sentiment that such an act is warranted by the superdelegates.

I think the converse is true, though. As long as this thing is allowed to play out, and the people are allowed to have their say in the matter, and everything is done by the book, we should be able to unite against the villainous conservate movement behind Obama...err, the nominee. :]

Roid and Tammy,

Pelosi in 2016!?!?

There are only two things that can be added to the above ... one is personal, that I'm in "group 2" and have run out of family memembers willing to vote for clinton in th general.

The orther thing is political -- its just that while I can see how many women would be put off by Obama's victory he has tools at his disposal to heal that wound. He seems likely to appoint two women to prominent cabinet posts [susan rice and samantha power] and has an excellent VP option in the person of Kathleen Sebelius.

What or rather who does Hillary have? I suppose camp Clinton may beleive that Obama would accept a VP slot -- but me, I'm with David Brooks on this one, Obama would rather be govenor of Illinois.

Who's left? The answer is, by the way, the sore spot that Noam seems wholly unable to grasp.    

roidubouloi,

I agree with you on so many levels that it is ridiculous.

I think what has tempered my own feelings is that 1) OUR candidate has run on a platform of changing "the game", and Clinton has not. As such, she is "playing the game" that we despise so much, while we appear to sit back and take it, but in reality that is part of changing the rules, to prove that their strategy is no better that ours. If we win, its major kudos and the beginning of a new era of politics. And 2) if we let this thing play out, and stick to the rules, we have no legiitimate basis for not solidifying the party in the fall.

This is just as important to both camps, because a fractured democratic party will not win in November; Obama will need the support of women, and Clinton will need the support of blacks, and if either side has legitimate claims of malfeasance then its over.

Unfortunately, Hillary is "playing the game" and many Obama supporters are understandably upset at her refusal to return the favor Obama has given her. It may be that if Obama does not get the nod, we'll feel strongly enough about the "new politics" that we'll take our vote where it is supposedly "appreciated" or just stay home.

As for Hillary supporters, polls seem to indicate they'll defect en masse (over 40%) if their nominee does not get the nomination. I am not sure why, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that "not fit to be Commander-in-Chief" nonsense, and perhaps a perception that "the good ol' boys" ran her off the stage. We can hold her responsible for the former, but we can only hold ourselves responsible for the later (if its true).

GSpinks,

I'd be happy to support Pelosi for president, but I would first like to see her do a cannier job in running the House.  She is onstage in a big way and needs to show that she has the political chops.  Not the policy.  Policy is for the hired wonks and bureaucrats.

Tammy,

I think you don't always distinguish between the Obama campaign and Obama supporters.  To my knowledge, Obama has never even come close to suggesting that blacks or anyone else ought to vote for him because it would be a great for blacks.  He avoids that like mad for very good reason as it would be the end of his campaign if they could paint him as the "black candidate" as opposed to a candidate who is black.   Maybe Michelle can be tagged with saying something in that vein, but she has been hustled off stage.  

And yes, in my tiny little corner of the political world, I have been successful as a political strategist.  When I got involved in local politics, we had a 3-2 Republican Town Board in a town with an even Dem Rep enrollment.  The after one miss, which was the learning cycle, we went on to take the majority with a sweep, 3-0, that made it a 4-1 Dem board, and then swept again to seat a 5-0 Dem board, and then a third time to keep it a 5-0 Dem board.  But I don't have any connection to the Obama campaign.  I'm too old to do grunt work and they don't need anyone higher up than that.  They seem to have geniuses at work.

one more thing: "legitimizes Republican tactics and smears"

Unless Obama gets the nod, in which case it has legitimized our campaign. And if the conservatives try to get "funny" after that, it'll only result in a landslide in our favor.

In effect, Clinton is doing Obama a favor because if she uses up all of the Republican's attack lines in the primary, they'll be forced to debate "issues" in the fall, or suffer a humiliating defeat.

GS,

I don't necessarily buy the polls that show mass defections.  It is hard to reconcile them with the polls that show either Hillary or Obama beating McCain (although this week Obama is certainly losing ground in the polls).  I think that Obama supporters would grit their teeth and support Hillary if she won the popular vote (without that MI and FL nonsense).  If she loses the delegate race and the popular vote and somehow persuades enough supers to vote for her anyway, I do honestly believe that the Democratic party would be in very deep trouble, not just at the presidential level.  The principle that in a democracy the voters get to decide what the voters vote on is pretty deeply ingrained in our political culture.  One can argue about the legal formalities that permit a different outcome until blue in the face, but I don't think the losers will agree to lose gracefully if their candidate actually won the democratic side and didn't receive the nomination.  I know that Hilllary's supporters would be berserk if she won the delegate count and the popular vote and was denied the nomination.

It is an interesting question why Hillary supporters would refuse to support Obama if he wins the delegate race and the popular vote as is likely.  On what basis could they claim "the boys" ran her off stage in an act of sexist discrimination?  Just because Obama is a male?  Was it really the year in which a woman was "entitled" to the nomination without the necessity actually to go out and get the votes of the party members?  If that really is the feeling of Hillary supporters, then the meme that she expected to be crowned rather than elected really would be true.

I think for a lot of reasons that Obama is going to beat McCain by a good margin.  But, if he doesn't, I think we will still have moved politics forward.  I think we would have a Democratic House and Senate and will have changed the political climate in the country for the better.  McCain would most likely do absolutely nothing for four years, which would be terrible for the country given the problems we face, but he would be pretty finished at the end of four years.  We would then have some chance of a political realignment such as occurred in 1932.  Enough living people will have seen what an incredible set of screwups the Republicans are so that we would be rid of them for another 40 years during which the country could move forward again.

Indeed, there is real risk to the Dems in taking over at this point given the mess Bush has made.  Among other things, I believe that Obama is much more likely than Hillary to move forward in new and creative ways.  I think Hillary would govern not very differently from McCain with the result that at the end of four years the Dems would be blamed for the mess and any political realignment would be put on hold indefinitely.  Apart from my dislike for Hillary, it is the reason that I am so concerned about her as a candidate.  I fear that it would end as a great setback for the Democratic party at a time when the country really cannot afford it.  Bill Clinton was a pretty good president, but he was not good for the Democratic party.  We have had to live through a terrible period of total Republican control and national decline as a result.  One of the things it has taught me is that control of both houses of Congress is more important than who is president, just the way the Constitution says it is.

Here's the thing: Obama has spent a lot time during this primary tagging Hilary and McCAin as part of the status quo. Voting for Hilary or McCain will be voting for the status quo. They are the same on the Iraq war, both saber rattling towards Iran, Both hawkish, both older. I actually think that Obama stands a better chance getting Hilary's voters than the other way around. I know polls point to Hilary's voters being more upset but imo they are taking their cues from her. They read her desperation and how upset and angry she would be so they become upset and angry. But I do believe once they see that he has the most states, most delegates most popular votes they will come around because it was arrived at fairly. Obama's supporters I'm inclined to believe will NOT come around it will just reinforce for a lot of them why they never should have gotten involved in the political process in the first place particularly among new voters. They didnt enter because they were angry at Bush they were angry at him in 2004 and probably the other presidents but it didnt bring them in with this kind of numbers. They didnt come for democrats because frankly democrats had their shot in 2006 and the let their supporters down. They came because there was somthing and someone to come to. Someone who OPPOSE the war from the beginning, someone who wants to bring the country together, someone who didnt come from privelege, someone who is diverse has roots in 3 continents. Moving him out and inserting Hilary is not going to let them say OK I'll vote for her particularly when SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.

Obama's campaign is a Movement. If they give her the nomination it will split the party and John McCain will win.

Carol

GSpinks and Roid, and others on this chain,  

Most of your comments, especially lately, have been well-reasoned and therefore interesting and satisfying to me.  But I'm still bothered by the Florida thing.  

1.7 million people voted in the Florida Democratic primary.  Either they were average people who therefore didn't get the DNC memo, or they wanted to express their voices regardless of the consequences.  Almost none of those 1.7 million people were responsible in any way for the actions of the Florida government in its game of chicken with the DNC.  

You've said that it's OK to disenfranchise those people not ONLY in the pledged delegate total, which the rules may specific, but ALSO in the overall popular vote debate.  You're going beyond the rules, which deprive them of some/all of their pledged delegates, to a broader point which is that their votes will be erased from the historical record.

And you're doing so because of the idea that counting their votes would somehow be disenfranchising the people who not only chose to stay home, but chose to stay home specifically because they happened to follow the policy / news memos coming out of the DNC.  

Even if you assume that Florida would have been on pace for a historically high turnout a la Texas or California or Pennsylvania (states with somewhat similar demographics), you're still talking about completely disenfranchising a LARGE number of Democrats who actually voted, in favor of a relatively small number of Democrats who did not vote, in an absolutely crucial must-win state for the Democrats.  

As a minor but relevant aside, Team Obama was pretty effecive and forceful in telling the powers-that-be in Florida and Michigan that they would not except the results of a fully-funded do-over primary.  This further weakens the idea that the exclusion of Florida voters is high-minded process, and further strengthens the idea that process rules (and the underlying democracy they protect) are being subverted to advance a particular candidate.  

I can understand wiping out the Michigan results, and I can understand wiping out some or all of the Florida pledged delegates, but given the rhetoric and ideals AND GOALS of the Democratic party and Obama himself, shouldn't we at least acknowledge that the Florida voters actually voted when counting the popular vote?  

As usual, I like what you're saying. I just have a couple of additions...

"It is hard to reconcile them with the polls that show either Hillary or Obama beating McCain"

The problem is those polls don't show how the electorate is voting; there is one poll that maps polling to the electoral map (can't remember the name), and basically shows that Obama will put a ton of swing states into play IN, WI while bread and butter states like OH and PA will probably fall to McCain.

That is where Obama gets his counter-argument of "changing the map" and "bringing states into play"; each of our candidates has a great chance at taking the whole thing in the fall, the real general election seems to be happening during the primary.

"On what basis could they claim "the boys" ran her off stage in an act of sexist discrimination?"

The first thing that comes to mind is asking that she concede the nomination early, instead of letting her play out the hand. Obama even said as much (in his own, much more eloquent words) when asked about it while campaigning in PA.

Tammy,

I do not care in the least if HRC's tears were real or not.  The only sexist element that I see is that I think HRC is forced to be a hawk on the war, because if she is against she will be seen as soft and feminine and not up to the task.

sorry for the delay in response (thanks for the firefox issue notification)

DMehlhorn,

Since i've covered the bylaws for the delegate selection process pretty well already, I'll just add some commentary.

The FL and MI thing bothers a lot of people, including Obama supporters. As repudiation, I highly recommend that nobody from MI and FL votes for the incumbents in their next election cycle. No decent Democrat wants to see another Dem get disenfranchised like that.

Why does Obama have to be Hillary's scapegoat? The fault, really and truly, lies on the heads of the democratic leadership of MI and FL for so many reasons, not the least of which is that they should have known the rules, they should have known better and they should have planned better. Obama has every right to demand a primary process that is reasonably free from corruption and mistakes; the fact that Clinton has villified him for that really makes me _bitter_.

As for "counting the popular vote", once the delegates have been awared in proportion to the votes cast, the votes are useless to the "actual" nomination process.

Every other possible use involves speculation on the part of analysts, and a possible consideration for superdelegates; but the only real weight of the popular vote was lost with the loss of delegates for the convention.

I don't buy those polls showing Clinton voters refusing to vote for BO at all.  I am one and that's the last thing I'd ever consider doing after the past 8 years of hell.  I think ther's maybe a bit of deception going on here by people answering those polls or by closet Republicans masquerading as Dems to the pollsters to keep the chaos and division going.  

Even without the Wright baggage, I just don't see Obama as a very good candidate. He brings nothing to the table aside from the buzz that currently surrounds him. He's a little like George W. Bush in 2000.  Unfortunately, he's not following Bill Clinton, who made presidentin' look easy. McCain--simply by not being Bush--can make the case that Obama is too risky.

The following is from today's Washington Post.  This is the reason Hillary is still in this race and Obama and the rest of us have to find an answer for those voters supporting her.  He hasn't been able to land a knockout punch because of them and he can't win in November without them.  That is what we should focus on rather than shouting that she is an illegitmate candidate.  Thank you.

Clinton, in Her Element

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton waves to supporters as she takes the stage at a rally in Hendersonville, N.C., May 2, 2008. (Associated Press)

By Dan Balz

KINSTON, N.C. -- The time is short and so her days are long. Most begin very early in the morning. They almost always stretch late into the night. Rallies. Town hall meetings. Small gatherings. Rope lines. Local interviews. Network heavies. Hotel arrivals after midnight. It is an endless rotation, repeated over and over and over again.

Hillary Clinton heads into yet another pre-primary weekend knowing the script by heart. Back to the wall. Running out of options. Needing a victory. Her slim hopes of winning the Democratic nomination depend on victories -- and more. She needs Barack Obama to stumble, again. She needs superdelegates to start swinging back in her direction. She needs to overtake her rival in the popular vote. She needs a break on Florida and Michigan.

But at this point in the long race, Clinton has found a groove, pushing forward relentlessly, demonstrating with each stop that she will not yield until she is finally defeated.

She has throttled back on some of the hot rhetoric that marked her closing days before the Ohio primary. She is less pure fighter than she was in Ohio. But she is no less resilient or determined. North Carolina Gov. Mike Easely, who has endorsed her candidacy, said Friday morning Clinton is "as tough as a lighter knot," a regionalism that refers to the hardest spots on a piece of pine wood. That brought a smile from the candidate.

Clinton has found a home -- and a potentially receptive audience -- among rural Democrats. The rural strategy worked to precision in Ohio, where she swept virtually everything outside the big cities. Her Indiana and North Carolina schedules reflect the same approach. Small towns. Middle-class and working-class. Older voters. Women.

In Ohio they had seen the worst that economic upheaval can deliver and she played to their plight. In Indiana and North Carolina, she is focused on the strain almost every working family is feeling now, touching whatever chords she can with her audiences.

In Indiana on Thursday, surrounded by daughter Chelsea and mother Dorothy Rodham, she spoke at length about concerns that women and parents have. In Kinston Friday morning, she talked agriculture and the programs she helped organize in upstate New York to help growers find markets for their products.

Her core message, as she says now repeatedly, is "jobs, jobs, jobs." Her secondary message is that she delivers. "When I tell you I'll do something, I'll do it, or move heaven and earth" trying, she said. And there is also a heavy dose of reassurance that she will be a president who will represent the needs of working families.

That, above all else, is what lies behind her proposal to suspend the gasoline tax this summer and slap a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to pay for it. "I want the Congress to stand up and vote," she said Friday. "Are they for the oil companies or are they for you?"

Congress may never come close to answering that question, given the opposition of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but that is of no matter to Clinton. She only wants voters in Indiana and North Carolina to know where she stands.

The pace can be punishing but she offers few public signs of the exhaustion she and Obama must feel. There is an occasional scratchy voice. When it struck Thursday in Indiana, she turned the microphone over to her daughter for a detailed recitation of how her health care plan would help a woman in the audience who was injured on the job.

Clinton attacks the rope line with more gusto than her husband, who invented the genre in modern campaigns. Methodically moving along the metal security barriers, she signs endless autographs on everything imaginable -- placards, scraps of paper, photos, books. "Ha Ha! Hillary," she scrawled in large letters on the T-shirt of one young man in Terre Haute.

She roared when someone asked her to sign a placard that read, "I've got a crush on Hillary." She laughed even harder over a T-shirt worn by another man with Bill Clinton's likeness superimposed over a painting of Jesus. She signed boxing gloves -- one red and the other pink -- and posed endlessly for photos.

The rope line in Terre Haute late Thursday was dominated by women of all ages, who are as passionate in their support of Clinton as Obama supporters are for their candidate. "I'm going to pray for her everyday and this country, because we're in trouble, said Linda Nicoson, who was wearing a T-shirt plastered with Hillary buttons.

Asked what she though of Obama, she said, "I don't think he knows enough about the country. We can promise anything, but until we get in the White House we can't do anything, and he doesn't know what's behind closed doors. That woman does."

A few feet farther along, 85-year-old Martha Love waited to pose with Clinton. "I think she's got more up here" -- she pointed to her head -- than anybody we've had yet," she said. Her daughter Janet beamed. "Mom's as strong [for Hillary] as anybody could be," she said.

This is Kentucky Derby week and there were many references to the horserace as Clinton campaigned in southern Indiana and across the border in Louisville, Ky., where one sign at her headquarters said, "Clinton in a Derby Mile," and another said, "I'm bettin' on the filly." The candidate picked up on the theme. "I just wish I could be here for the Derby," she said. "Chelsea's going to be here. I want everybody to place a little money on the filly."

That is still a bet with long odds. But Clinton makes clear every day she intends to run the race to the finish line.

This is mostly anecdotal but many of us old , white, boomer folks support Obama.  I'm 60, have lived in the same city for 54 years, so have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances.  Every Democrat I know, and some Republicans, are supporting Obama and will be furious to the point of non-participation if Clinton gets the nomination through any cynical means, be it race-baiting, or any other type of shenanigan.

There is so much hate in Ieudoxie  comments I’m terrified .

No, jacob, the hate is in YOUR posts.  But you are pathetic and therefore don't terrify anyone.

dmelhorn.

You talk about disenfranchising the 1.7 million Floridians who "voted."  What I think you are not giving enough weight to is that when you included corrupted election results in with legitimate results, you disenfranchise the more than 30 million other people who voted.  They have a right to have their votes "counted" without the addition of results inevitably corrupted by the fact that the even in Florida was declared before the fact and understood be all -- candidates and the public -- NOT to be a bona fide election.

I also take issue with your history that Obama prevented a re-vote.  Not true.  In MI, he asked that ALL the Dems who would have been eligible to vote, including those who could have voted had they not crossed over to the Republican primary in the knowledge that the Dem primary was only a beauty contest.  I am unaware of any objections he raised to a re-vote in FL.  Indeed, if any of the candidates can be blamed for this outcome, it is Hillary.  In the beginning, she pressed seating the delegations "as is" and resisted a re-vote, in her characteristic elevation of her own self-interest above any principle.  Only when that appeared hopeless did she start to push for a re-vote.  By then it was too late.  Now, of course, she is back pushing the disenfranchisement argument.  She is so shameless that she even pushes for the MI delegation where Obama was not on the ballot.  Apparently, it never even occurs to her that this extreme position undermines her argument by making evident that she is without principle.

As to whose supporters would or would not sit out the election, I think it is entirely a question of who wins the primary contests.  If Hillary were to win it, Obama's supporters would come around.  But if Hillary loses and is delivered the nomination anyway, I believe that millions of people will sit out the election and it will be a debacle for the Democratic party.  What is so striking in all this is the number of Hillary's supporters who say they will sit out the election even if Obama wins the delegate race, the popular vote, and the backing of the super-delegates.  In other words, Hillary's supporters are not prepared to accept any democratic outcome that does not give the nomination to Hillary.

What do you suppose that is about?  It seems to me to reinforce the meme that Hillary, and her supporters, feel entitled to the nomination, without regard to the sentiment of the voters, because she is a woman and because it is "her turn."  Might that not also have something to do with why she is losing?  In our local election campaigns, I have always told my candidates that, even when we know from our polls that they are well in the lead, they had better be seen running like mad until the end because the moment the voters think that you take their votes for granted is the moment they will turn on you, and it can happen very fast.

Finally, for myself, I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with Hillary running until she literally dropped dead if she could do it without dirt and without doing the Republicans' work for them.  If she could have stuck to the reasons for her candidacy without publicly suggesting that her Democratic opponent was unfit to be president, okay.  But she couldn't.  Because over and over my observation is that Hillary has no loyalty to the Democratic party or the its cause.  It is just a tool for her own ambition.  I am one of the Democrats who has put in a lot of time, money, effort, and anguish into the success of the party and my response is, "I don't think so."  I am cheered to find that a majority of my fellow Democrats agree with me.  If Hillary's supporters want to sit out the election, let them.  The party will regroup on another basis, that is not tied to their interests, and end up that much stronger for it.

Roid, Spinks,

Two things:

(1)  On "doing the Republicans' diry work", Obama personally raised questions about Hillary's truthfulness, and his senior campaign staffers did the same, starting when she was well ahead.  If Hillary wins the nomination, that branding work will absolutely be used against her.  I don't object to it -- that's part of politics.  What I object to is what seems to me to be a double-standard, because he was allowed to do it when she was the "presumptive nominee" and massively ahead in the polls, and she is not allowed to make similarly generic arguments about his experience when he is the odds-on favorite.  

(2)  I just don't get it about Florida.  At the end of the day, one of many factors that matters is "how many people voted for Hillary?"  People in Florida trudged to the polls and voted for Hillary, plain and simple.  To use the term "corrupt" to describe the Florida votes is completely out of proportion with what actually happened.  What actually happened is senior officials in Florida got angry with the dominance of Iowa and New Hampshire and played a game of chicken with the DNC, and lost, and despite that 1.7 million people still went out to vote.  To say that recognizing that fact is somehow disenfranchising the other millions who voted . . . it's incredibly far-fetched.  It doesn't comport with any idea of legitimacy I can think of, except "Obama has to win" legitimacy.   But, even with Florida in the mix, Obama is ahead int he popular vote and would need to seriously collapse down the stretch in order to lose on that metric.   Put simply, Obama can win, and easily, with Florida in the mix.  

When Obama was winning every contest in sight and Hillary's campaign was in its worst phase, supporters of Obama said that the fact that no one campaigned in Florida makes those results irrelevant.  And, they seemed to have a point.  But, since then, Clinton has won states like Pennsylvania with margins among key demographic groups that are identical to the margins she won in Texas, Ohio, and even California, suggesting that the Florida result was an accurate reflection of peoples' ideas about the two candidates.  

I like Obama a lot, but I like a fair fight more than any one candidate, and this doesn't seem right to me.  The stretch here forces me to ask the question of whether your procedural argument would be the same if Obama had won Florida.  

Roid,

Also, if Florida was understood by everyone not to be an election, why did all those people go and vote?  That is such an incredibly large number of people, they can't all have been crazy.  In the version of the world that supports your argument, what was going through their minds?  

D,

Let me give this one last go.  I do not mean "corrupted" in the sense of criminal corruption, stealing.  I mean it in the sense of "bad data."  Just force of happen, but I am in a line of work that depends on the correct analysis of data and when "the data is corrupted" we know that we cannot have a reliable result.  Would Hillary have won Florida in a real election?  More than likely.  But by how much?  Would it have been by 16% or 9% or 5%?  In California, Hillary's margin was about 8%, in TX 3.5%.  Which one is more like Florida?  I don't know of any means of telling.  Do you?  You could "correct" the result using some current opinion poll as the guide, but we don't do that in America and how would you "correct" the turnout figures?  How would you correct for the absence of any campaigning in Florida?

If the inclusion of Florida isn't going to change any outcome, then who cares and there is no reason to include Florida other than the pretense of inclusion.  If, on the other hand, the inclusion of Florida would change the outcome, then we are using a fantastical thumb on the scale to change the outcome that would prevail from 30 million real people voting in a real election.  What if a 16% margin in Florida would change the outcome, but an 8% margin in Florida would not change the outcome, or if a 3.5% margin would not change the outcome?  What are you supposed to do?  Florida was allowed to participate in that process, to be sure, but it disenfranchises the 30 million to overturn their choice based on the inclusion of a bizarre kind of opinion poll conducted in Florida.  We don't know who would have turned out in a real election and there is no way to know.

There is also a second order affect.  Are people influenced by what they see in prior elections?  Probably to some extent.  What would the impact have been on turnout in other races if Florida had held a real election with a result different than what occurred.

Finally, we have the fact that Florida's democratic legislators went along with this scheme.  Why did they do it?  Because they hoped to trade their loss of delegates for an outsized influence on the course of the election.  They did it in the belief that the outcome of a given race can influence subsequent races.  They bet wrong.

Why would people come out to participate in the Florida straw poll?  They had no other opportunity to "participate" in the nominating contest because their legislature had deprived them of delegates at the convention.  Are you saying that the Floridians who voted didn't know that they were not voting for delegates to the convention?  I rather doubt that given the publicity and the absence of campaigns in their state.  There used to be a state, maybe it was IA, that held a "straw poll" well in advance of the primary season. Why did they do it?  To influence public opinion.  Did people participate?  Yes.  Did it influence public opinion?  Yes.  

The voters in Florida are getting nothing more nor less than they were promised.  They were promised an early chance to influence public opinion in exchange for the loss of their delegates.  They had it.  At any time, they could have conducted a second primary or a caucus, within the permitted time frame, to give themselves a delegation.  They didn't.  It is of absolutely no importance that the voters of FL are or are not blameworthy.  What matters is that you cannot arbitrarily add to the real outcome numbers that were generated in something other than a bona fide election.

I would feel absolutely no differently if there had been a different outcome in Florida.  My whole point is that the "outcome" is largely meaningless.  

I would like to see some citation to Obama publicly questioning Hillary's honesty in the early campaign.  An ABC poll before Iowa showed that about half of the Iowa voters did not trust Hillary to be honest.  Obama didn't create that.  Hillary created that.

By the way, a couple of weeks before PA, I put the polls to the delegates and posted that the most likely case was PA, Hillary +12, IN, Hillary, +6, NC, Obama +18, a wash.  

In fact, Hillary has netted 12 delegates in PA.  Just before the untimely reemergence of the Rev. Wright, it was looking like IN would be zero and NC +16 for Obama, a net of 4 for Obama for the entire exchange.  Post Wright, it today looks like +8 for Obama in NC and +4 for Hillary in IN.  A net of 8 for Hillary for the entire exchange out of 364 delegates chosen in the three races.

So, the whole big drama from the Hillary campaign about PA and blah, blah, blah, comes down to plus or minus 4 delegates against Obama's pre-PA lead of 166. Virginiacentrist thinks the NC turnout is understated by the polls and that Obama will get north of 10%.  None-the-less, Hillary is just spinning air.  The whole Wright thing may end up costing Obama 12 net delegates, 5 of which Obama has already made up by collecting more super-delegate commitments.  Or we may wake up on May 7 and find out that Hillary is right back where she started from before PA, her big push, with only 217 pledged delegates left to choose and 295 super delegates.

It would be very optimistic to predict that Hillary will gain a net 20 more pledged delegates out of the 217. She will have to make up a deficit of at least 120 delegates out of 295 remaining super delegates most of whom are still believed to be leaning toward Obama.  In any case, Hillary needs to win the remaining supers by 3:1.  Those supers can think about FL and MI any old way they want to and none of us will ever know what they thought about it.

After this Tuesday, Hillary well be behind in the popular vote by about 700,000 votes, 400,000 if you include the tainted Florida result.  To make up even the 400,000 in the remaining races, Hillary will need  an average margin of 13%, quite a bit higher than her margin in PA.  To make up the 700,000, she would need about 23%.  Let me pretend I am a super delegate:  I will credit Hillary with half her FL margin PLUS half of her MI margin.  That's 180,000 votes in her column.  I call her down more than 500,000 on May 7.  There are some caucus votes in favor of Obama unreported, but I will ignore that.  By my private super-delegate reckoning, this is going to end with Obama winning both the delegate race and the popular vote.

What do you think I'm going to do?  Vote for Hillary because she is the one with the 54% unfavorable rating from the public?  But if Hillary can manage to capture the 17% margin of the remaining popular vote that she would need to cover the 500,000 plus that she is down, I, the super delegate, am willing to reconsider.  

So let the race be run.  I will take exceptional pleasure in seeing Hillary run to the end and lose decisively in the end.  Maybe that will shut up the Hillaristas once and for all.  

Roid,

You are reinforcing my point -- even if you acknowledge Florida Hillary has an incredibly steep hill to climb.  Acknowledging Florida NOW and then winning the popular vote anyway seems to me the best way for Obama to clinch the nomination -- and by "best way", I don't just mean "most certain," I also mean "most helpful, most legitimate."  

D,

I don't think Obama needs to give Hillary any tactical gifts.  He is going to win the nomination.  I don't think the FL and MI issue is going to have any impact on the general election whatsoever.  FL is not a legitimate outcome and there is zero reason to legitimize it -- because immediately the question arises of how to count it which is just another long wrangle.  The only consequence would be to give additional life to the dying Hillary campaign.  If he threw here such a lifeline, the Hillaristas would immediately start claiming, "See, he can't close the deal."

The truth is, it is a deader than dead issue.  The supers will weight the MI and FL results in whatever way they want and we will never.  Their delegations will not be seated; the DNC will not retrospectively confer legitimacy on the rule-breakers in any way.  Obama is not going to accept Hillary's self-serving redefinition of the rules rhetorically or in any other way.