The only explanation that I can think of for Hillary's campaign post TX-OH-VT-RI-WY-MS, when she fell even further behind and lost any realistic hope of catching up, is that Hillary cannot bear the thought of leaving center stage -- forever!  She wants to milk the feeling of being important, even if in a negative way, as long as she possibly can precisely because she knows she is almost certainly never going back to the White House.  This is her last dance.  It is a drug addiction and the drugs are power and attention.

roid: I'd go with David Brooks' variation on your explanation. Maybe it's not so much the power as the habituation to being a campaigner and a pol. It's an Aristotelian insight: habituation shapes one's character. She's been running to win or hold the White House for almost two decades. After thousands of forced smiles and platitudes spouted and pretend-happy encounters with voters and colleagues and interviewers, maybe it's too big a leap for her to imagine herself doing something else.

roid, one doesn't have to think of Hillary as a moral monster to understand why she might continue in the race.

It's as simple as this: Shit happens. Look back to Jon Grunseth's campaign for Minnesota governor in 1990. The guy was cruising to an easy win when, with just days left in the campaign, it was revealed that he had a penchant for skinny-dipping with teenager girls. He dropped out in disgrace, and the guy who lost the nomination to him stepped in and won the election -- and went on to serve eight years as one of Minnesota's most successful governors. (Much to the disgust of the Grunseth Republicans, like Tim Pawlenty, who to this day have never forgiven Arne Carlson for the sins of being a popular Republican and a good governor.)

If Hillary can find the resources, both fiscal and emotional, to stay in the race, then if Grunsethian shit happens to Obama, she can more or less claim the nomination. If she drops out today, and catastrophe strikes Obama next week, then the nomination would be up for grabs, and it's possible to imagine the party looking to Gore or someone other than Hillary to replace Obama atop the ticket.

In case anyone's interested, here's the link to that Brooks column about Hillary, from the NYTimes:

www.nytimes.com/.../25brooks.html

I'd rather she win those states while still being in the race than winning them without being in the race.  So long as she plays nice and runs a Huckabee-esque swan-song campaign, there's no reason why she shouldn't stay in until May 21.  

She will run again. She's too determined not to. HRC would be smart to go bust her ass for Obama and run for governor of NY. And the next time she runs, don't treat the democratic voters like a bunch of jerks by pandering to the Republicans, corporate America and the nuts in the neo-con foreign policy set. She took her nomination as a right, and it cost her everything. Learn from your mistakes and go on. Unless he is hit by a thunderbolt, the future is her only chance.

oh man, you should read the comments section at Taylormarsh. They all still seem to believe Hillary can still win.

If Hillary really wanted to run again, it is not in her interest to continue running now.  She is not going to make herself look better, is wearing everyone out, is that much more likely to be blamed if Obama should lose, will marginalize herself under an Obama administration, and cannot accomplish anything more that would make her a more attractive candidate for a next go.  On the other hand, if she bowed out gracefully, she would earn some gratitude in the party that could serve her well.

Considering the money of her own and her supporters that she will spend in a campaign that is now not only to nowhere but from nowhere, it seems utterly pointless.

Rhubarbs, she doesn't have to keep running in order to get the spot if Obama somehow implodes, even post convention.  Just the reverse.  If she pisses everyone off by exhausting the party, then an Obama implosion is that much more likely to lead to a Gore nomination.  If she is gracious now, she would be viewed much more kindly in that unlikely event.

Despite what rhubarbs and brooks say, I think it is either a matter of spite or, as I said before, that she just cannot bear to let go and to stop thinking of herself as a future president.  I think she feels that this is a close as she may ever get and cannot let go for purely pathological reasons.  

By the way, as of the moment, the net delegate change for PA-IN-NC is -0- as predicted quite a while ago.  There are still some unaccounted for as yet.  Based on the virtual tie in IN and the spread in NC, they are more likely to produce a net gain for Obama than for Hillary.  If so, then it will continue to be true that, at every round of voting, she has fallen further behind.  

If FL and MI were seated (using the MI margin not the gross), it would produce about 16 Hillary delegates for MI and about 35 from FL.  Call it 50.  If they compromise on half, following the Republicans, in order not to look like total idiots for allowing the rules to be violated with impunity, then Hillary would gain 25.  The problem with awarding her 50, or even 25, at too early a juncture is the possibility that it might change the outcome.  I predict that this will not be resolved until it is clear that Obama is going to win enough super-delegates so that it is really just a gesture.  I do not think that FL and MI will be permitted to change the outcome.

The supers keep dribbling toward Obama.  He will soon have a lead..  But I am wondering when the dam will break.  

I don't get it, wasn't the $6.4 million spent LASTmonth?  Until yesterday, I pretty sure Hill honestly believed she had a chance, hence the second loan.  Today the only reason I can see that she's still in it are those 6.4 (+5) million dollars.  She reckons there remain a few hundred thousand "common folks" out there naive enough to support her with $50 contributions.  If she admit's she's toast, that money dries up instantly.  

And you know what?  You can't really blame her.  As I argued in an earlier post, you don't get (or stay) rich by being unconcerned about money.  11.4 million is a lotta bones--even for Bill and Hillary.  And as Rhubarb informed me earlier, her campaign may be obligated by campaign finance law to pay that money back even if personally she'd prefer to write it off.

I predict that over the next month you'll see Clinton making a lot of personal appearances in smallish venues without a lot of prepwork, a skeleton support crew, zero tv ads, but LOTS of email solicitation of donations.  I also predict that it'll be a kinder, gentler Hillary Clinton we'll be hearing from.  No use pissing off the guy who's likely to be the next POTUS, and the negativity isn't the best fund raising pitch anyway.  People want to believe they're building something with their money, not tearing things down.

To elaborate just a little, back in the old days (by which I mean 2004)  a campaign had to finish as soon as it was obvious that it couldn't win.  The bulk of the money came from wealthy and politically savvy contributors who have the maximum, and as soon as it became apparent that a candidate was out of contention, the door on that funding stream slammed shut.  But as both Obama and Clinton have demonstrated, that model has been supplanted.  Hillary, I think, is counting that the APPEARANCE of an ongoing campaign will be enough to keep the money from small donors trickling in over the internet.  And she may just be right.

Simple. She wants to save face, for herself and for her supporters. And why shouldn't she? Also, she wants to be in the best position to bargain for whatever she can get. What's so unusual or wrong with that?

Sometimes ego and face cost a lot to protect and save. She and Billl understand that if they understand anything. It may show heart or cunning, or both. Mike, you have waned a little *too cynical* here, and it's obscured your judgment. Get some rest (HAH!).

I hate to say it, but the only motivation that makes sense to me is that she's running to damage Obama sufficiently that he will lose to McCain-  so she can run in 2012.

We get it Crowley, your hatred of the Clinton's is so deep that you'll quote the Weekly Standard to support you. Now wasn't it Clinton and her vile supporters who were using GOP tactics...and I'm sure you're ok with Obama's long history of comparing HRC to GWB and preferring the policies of GHWB over WJC, especially that realistic foreign policy and smart war making of his.

The constant  drivel from the TNR staff and it's ghastly echo chamber in the comments section has finally made me cough up the money to join in, not that there many reasonable people here who might actually be interested in facts but in the hope that some readers may get an alternative, and progressive, view.

So couple of links to start things off:

Obama the grassroots cnadidate?

www.blackagendareport.com/index.php

Obama and recent history..

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../refight-the-nineties_b_80751.html

Axlerod, so unlike Penn:

www.motherjones.com/.../7765_astroturf_axelr.html

Another view of the electablility:

correntewire.com/why_wont_that_stupid_git_give_up_already

Hey bfap, buzz off Crowley. He is one of the few genuine skeptics at TNR. His reportage of both candidates has been uniformly excellent.  If you check his Stump blogs he's pretty even there too.

C doesn't need defending, certainly, but your above rant is off, way off.

Tomeg, be as polite as I am and link to prove your point otherwise I have to assume it's balderdash as from memory everytime I've read Crowley he's shilling for Obama.

Actually Tomeg I just did your work for you blogs.tnr.com/.../default.aspx

Crowley - 10 posts - 8 negative about Clinton in some way, 1 boosting Obama, 1 negative about McCain..

really even handed!

BTW Tomeg, I almost forgot, apart from my 'rant' about Crowley what was inaccurate in my original post or do you acknowledge that GOP tactics are as common (if not more so) in the Obama camp as in Clinton's and that it is disgusting how Obama has repeatedly praised Bush Sr and Reagan while equivocating the administrations of Clinton and Bush Jr.

Andrya0, Roid,

STOP WITH THE DEMONIZATION OF HILLARY.  Prior to your posts, there were a half-dozen entirely plausible reasons for her to stay in the race.  Why on earth do you guys have to posit that it's all about hurting Obama in '08 or some pathology?  

As I've asked before, why don't the devotees of the Obama-as-national-healer campaign see the irony of choosing to demonize his strongest remaining opponent?  

Andrya0, Roid,

STOP WITH THE DEMONIZATION OF HILLARY.  Prior to your posts, there were a half-dozen entirely plausible reasons for her to stay in the race.  Why on earth do you guys have to posit that it's all about hurting Obama in '08 or some pathology?  

As I've asked before, why don't the devotees of the Obama-as-national-healer campaign see the irony of choosing to demonize his strongest remaining opponent?  

bfap, you are probably right about Crowley's favoritism, but unless you can prove out-right deception, and not just unfavorable subjective analysis, there is nowhere to go.

as for your links, I'm not even going to bother because you have not included anything that constitutes a "credible source"; more often that not (subjective analysis/commentary aside) they are filled with fork-tongue activists for one cause or another, who are more concerned with making their case sound good to the average Joe, who isn't going to notice the omission of important details, or manipulation of common misconceptions. Case in point, blackagendareport's article says:

"Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot"

I would call this disingenious, but it is pretty much a out-right lie ensconsed in simplistic truths in order to disguise it; there is no "loophole". Private citizens, regardless of employer or occupation, are allowed to contribute their money to primary campaigns privately (there may be a few notable exceptions to this, but I can't find any at this moment).

This is a "detail" HRC tried to use to counter BHO claims of no PAC money, by claiming PAC money via private contributions to his primary campaign. It is a specious claim, and in fact more of a damnable lie: the conclusion is not valid based on the logic/information given.

Material from sources like you have provided tends to be, at its best, scurrilous and specious. The material from blackagendareport is pretty much damnable.

Crowley may be biased to favor Obama in his reporting, but his reporting standards for accuracy and truth (subjective commentary aside) are saintly compared to the drivel you've provided here.

Sorry dmelhorn,

I cannot think of any non-pathological reason for Hillary to continue to run, certainly not if she cares at all about the interests of the Democratic party, which of course she does not.

I wrote you a nice long explanation as to why I detest Hillary Clinton over on the Alan Wolfe thread.

Spinks, you accept I am "probably right about Crowley"  but you still need me to 'prove' it. Well I thought I had to Tomeg upstream but as a constant rattle of negative stories about one candidate and months of subtle (and not so subtle) boosterism of the other candidate isn't enough for you how about this quote by Saint Michael given to Howard Kurtz of the WaPo on 12/19/07 which shows how early he'd made up his preferred narrative - "The problem here may be that Obama remains reluctant to really go after Hillary's character -- to portray her as unethical and dishonest on some fundamental level,"

Just in case you've forgotten - www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2007061502089.html

goliath.ecnext.com/.../Obama-likens-Hillary-to-Bush.html

marcambinder.theatlantic.com/.../the_obama_campaigns_memo.php

and the wife www.youtube.com/watch

But I guess these are all invalid sources..like that notorious rag Mother Jones or the mendacious Barney Frank whom I had the gall to link to above. Unless of course they and other progressives such as Glen Ford and the Black Agenda Report are all untrustworthy..to you.

BTW whether you like it or not there is meat in the BAR piece such as Obama's votes on Class Action tort reform and the credit card industry regulations. Also the clever use of the ' it's only perosnal' loophole where every member of a company contribute the maximum is jut that- a sneaky loophole. Do you really think that Obama who has out raised HRC on Wall Street and the medical insurance industry

is a man of the people?

Corrente is generally a good site with a range of input, I linked to that piece as a wind-up, to demonstrate how there are two sides to every coin. But I notice you cherry pick your attacks and avoid the substance, your obsession with a line from the Black Agenda Report (strike a nerve?) excepted.

Now give me some positive reasons to vote for Obama.

bfap, lets start from the top.

I accept you are correct about Crowley's apparent favoritism. I ask you to prove that Crowley has stated, as fact (not opinion or speculation), something which is not true, only partly true, or a damnable lie, which he has not recinded.

"The problem here may be that Obama remains reluctant to really go after Hillary's character -- to portray her as unethical and dishonest on some fundamental level,"

I would categorize this particular statement as speculative analysis, due to the word "may be that" which would indicate the speaker is speculating, and therefore exempted under the conditions set forth previously.

I will grant you that the credible sources you have provided make this "speculative analysis" look feeble, but I won't get into the value or accuracy of said analysis because that was not the point I was making.

I am not familiar with "the BAR piece", but in general I give the benefit of the doubt to every candidate on legislative voting habits until I hear something from the candidate themselves which leads me to conclude that it was something other than it seemed primarily because it is way too easy to omit details regarding voting records which make them appear as other than what they are. Case in point is WOW; I heard they were griping about Obama's voting record in IL, until I heard his local chapter had requested that he vote "present", and then I've heard nothing since. Sorry I don't have any references, but like I said I don't give that type of "issue" credability so I don't pay much attention. If there is a real issue there, I'm sure some one will bring it back up.

As for the article from blackagendareport, I went back to their "source", and my conclusion supports my assumption: scurrilous at best. The article "Obama's Money Cartel" by Pam Martens cites an article "Obama's Cash Flow" by Joshua Frank which cites data gathered from OpenSecrets.org which reports data that is accredited to the Center for Responsive Politics. The data from OpenSecrets.org does not support the assertions of the article "Obama's Money Cartel" because the data reported, such as "Goldman Sachs $535,678 ", is an aggregate of all donations based on the reporting information which is required of people who donate more than $200/year. The website's own disclaimer reads "This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2007 - 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates." In other words, the author has cited data, and omitted critical details regarding this data which necessarily define what valid conclusions can be drawn from said data. I tend to refer to stuff like this as "lie by omission" or sometimes damnable lies (in reference to the scale: lies, damn lies, and half-truths).

Again, I could probably go on, but it has taken me long enough to research just one instance.

As for voting for Obama, I can think of lots of good reasons. But I will just give you my first. The reason I even noticed Obama, and the reason he has always been my first choice, is because I've been extremely concerned about the Partisan Politics of the last 16-20 years, especially in the possible cascade of detrimental effects it has on America; I've wanted a candidate to stand up and say no more Partisan Politics since before I was old enough to vote, and now I have that candidate. In my estimation, he has done a respectable job holding to that particular ideal; this is subjective speculation, of course, but I would like to think of myself as hawkish on the issue of Partisanship, and not as willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any candidate.

Spinks, have to go to work so apologies for being very brief and hurried.

However you parse it Crowley's "speculative analysis" is unbalanced and not worthy of a serious journalist. If I say that it 'may be' that I can attack GSpinks for being a naive bubblehead, I think you would take it, rightly, as a slur on your character. Words matter, as some celebrity said. And more than words actions matter. Obama can sing the song of unity till he's blue in the face but his unity schtick has not prevented the Democratic party from being more divided than it' s been in decades. Oops. (And you may blame Clinton for this but if he could really follow through on his promise to unify the whole country one shrill satan lady shouldn't be much of a problem now should it). Are you not old enough to remember Bush in 2000 calling for an end to bi-partisan politics and a return to common decency? Words matter but actions tell the truth.I don't have time to provide the links, but the ones I provided above should help begin to correct the lie that Obama is a non-aggressive new kind of politician.

My favorite Obama oxymoron "I play clean, she;s just mean."

PS However you break it down, Obama is receiving millions from big business and his votes, remember Exelon and the nuclear waste bill, reflect that.

I was going to debate this one out but your PS caught my eye.

clinton has accepted millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the very same companies as Obama.

Obama's contributors: www.opensecrets.org/.../contrib.php

Clinton's contributors: www.opensecrets.org/.../contrib.php

Obama is receiving the same "millions from big business" as Hillary.

to quote you: "OOPS".

Uh Spinks, where did I ever state that Clinton is not receiving millions from big biz or even claim that I am an HRC supporter. Inaccurate and presumptive. Double oops. Pleased to see you've accepted all my other points as accurate however . I presume (sic) this as you don't refute them..

You  are correct, I was a bit presumtuous there.

Thanks for your presumption, but I too have to get moving and to work in the mornings.

Ok, lets see here:

"However you break it down" - your logic is disingenious; the breakdown breaks down any plausible connection between the private donations and the will of the company

" receiving millions from big business " - this claim holds as much water as any preposterous conspiracy theory I've ever heard; I take it you are all about public funded campaigns? do you think the government injected citizens with HIV on purpose too?

"Excelon" - oh please, Excelon and their Republican cronies stonewalled Obama until they got things their way, at least he got *something* passed

"unbalanced and not worthy of a serious journalist" - that could be said of just about any analyst on any given day regarding any given topic; try cutting the guy some slack and just arguing your point instead of demeaning them "The constant  drivel from the TNR staff and it's ghastly echo chamber"

"If I say that it 'may be' that I can attack GSpinks for being a naive bubblehead, I think you would take it, rightly, as a slur on your character" - nope.

You're an imbecile with a train of thought half the size of your big toe, and probably a johnson to match - that is a slur; notice the offensiveness, the declarative statements? English really is not as subjective as you seem to think it is (that would be another slur :) ).

"remember Bush in 2000 " - I remember, I didn't believe it for a second. I didn't believe Clinton in 92 either, he had gotten me to vote for him in 96 because he wasn't wrecking everything (looks like he was actually home-wrecking but thats fine by me, as long as it doesn't affect policy). Obama is different, he has a sincerity factor that I never saw with Clinton or Bush.

Unity -  your point is disingenious, there won't be any unity among Dems until after the nominee has been chosen; and even then there will be those disaffected that will vote NOT OBAMA in spite.

"correct the lie that Obama is a non-aggressive new kind of politician" - you make the wrong assumption, he never claimed non-aggressive (kid gloves with Hillary, maybe), he has claimed Issue-Focused. Yeah, some of that stuff is pretty aggressive, but its all about issues.  (except perhaps for Michelle, but I do think that that is a good point because it raises the question of "what will she let her people get away with if she is in office?", as well as pretty funny)

"Obama who has out raised HRC on Wall Street and the medical insurance industry" - Obama has outraised Hillary in every demographic and industry across America, and well as crush all previous records for money and number of donors; the only thing he is beholden to is the 1.5 million people who have given private donations to his primary campaign.

"might actually be interested in facts" - there are lots of people here who are all about the facts, and love a good discussion or debate; and hate when people say things like "The constant  drivel from the TNR staff and it's ghastly echo chamber in the comments section"

"However you break it down" - your logic is disingenious; the breakdown breaks down any plausible connection between the private donations and the will of the company

- The proof will be in the pudding.

" receiving millions from big business " - this claim holds as much water as any preposterous conspiracy theory I've ever heard; I take it you are all about public funded campaigns? do you think the government injected citizens with HIV on purpose too?

- Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. You clearly think that Obama receives no money from businesses just from individuals which I think is an absurd position to take but are you seriously suggesting that wanting to remove private money from government is a conspiracy theory? If so you have a philosophical difference with your candidate who has  made campaign finance reform a major part of his platform and who at one time pledged to use public financing. I would go a step further and suggest a model similar to the UK where every broadcaster’s license includes a condition to provide ALL political parties – not just the perennial governing parties but also the ‘minor’ parties such as the Greens– with equal airtime (in ten minute chunks, not 30 or 60 second bites) during the manageably short election cycle. The sooner all private money is removed from election campaigns at every level of government the sooner there will be substantive change in the nature of government.

"Excelon" - oh please, Excelon and their Republican cronies stonewalled Obama until they got things their way, at least he got *something* passed

- But was it worth it? www.nytimes.com/.../03exelon.html

The key point being that the industry gets to make the call on what needs to be reported as a ‘serious’ leak and established that state and local authorities had no regulatory oversight. Wow.

"unbalanced and not worthy of a serious journalist" - that could be said of just about any analyst on any given day regarding any given topic; try cutting the guy some slack and just arguing your point instead of demeaning them "The constant  drivel from the TNR staff and it's ghastly echo chamber"

- I agree, I think most of the journalists at major publications are not worthy but I won’t cut them any slack. I demean them because they make it their business to demean their profession, the people they report on and their readership.

"If I say that it 'may be' that I can attack GSpinks for being a naive bubblehead, I think you would take it, rightly, as a slur on your character" - nope.

- I repeat, it may be that you are a simple-minded fool or you could simply be unethical and dishonest at some fundamental level.

You're an imbecile with a train of thought half the size of your big toe, and probably a johnson to match - that is a slur; notice the offensiveness, the declarative statements? English really is not as subjective as you seem to think it is (that would be another slur :) ).

- I don’t believe I need English lessons from you as my grammar, spelling and logic are clearly the superior of the two examples on display. (No insult by your reckoning due to the believe’ word eh?)

I don’t believe I need English lessons from you as my grammar, spelling and logic are clearly the superior of the two examples on display. (No insult by your reckoning due to the believe’ word eh?)

correct :)

I repeat, it may be that you are a simple-minded fool or you could simply be unethical and dishonest at some fundamental level.

but I *am* a simple minded fool, haven't you figured that out by now?

"they make it their business to demean their profession"

I agree there are some media outlets (Faux News comes to mind first) to which this qualifies as an accurate analysis, even in my book. However, some of them really do try and they should be given credit. I find TNR to be one of those places where the journalists make a sincere, concerted effort; I think it needs to be appreciated, or at least respected, for that alone.

"But was it worth it"

You have to start with something, and you can't say he didn't try. If we can get Obama elected, we should be able to make additional progress. He has admitted favoring Nuclear power, but wants appropriate health and safety rules and regulations or no deal. I've very much disliked Nuclear for a long time, but it was largely due to the health and safety risks presented, compounded by the industry's apparent unwillingness to be regulated or follow the few regulations they had. I'd be willing to jump on board if we can get guarantees on the health and safety stuff. He's got some other energy ideas I like too, like clean coal.

"are you seriously suggesting that wanting to remove private money from government is a conspiracy theory?"

Nope, but I do like private funding the way we have it now, because it allows the popular opinion to take effect early; if people don't like your platform -> they don't donate -> you can't run unless you're inordinately rich and can stomach squandering that much money; its a great way to introduce honesty and sincerity into politics, and remind candidates they are seriously beholden to the private citizen above all else. Conversely, public funding levels the playing field too much, eliminates strengths, enhances weaknesses, and obscures the real meaning of "public servant". For example, Obama could not be running for office on a publicly funded budget because he has no national credentials; no one knows who he is, which has forced him to outspend Hillary 3 to 1 in recent contents, all in an effort to simply introduce himself to the general population, many of whom did not know his name, let alone that he is the Jr Senator from Illinois.

Oh yeah, you said you wanted a reason to vote for Obama...pick a favorite issue:

www.barackobama.com/issues

Obama was my first choice because of changing the culture of realpolitik, returning some of the original glory of politics, but I never expected to agree with him on so many issues: I'm a big fan of civil rights, economic and foreign policies.