Sounds like a giveaway verbal slip to me. It's hard to believe a practiced pol could be so sloppy. But "I just voted for 'em" doesn't make any sense, it's not a construction anyone would use.

Not that Edwards' ability to have a real effect on this race isn't long past. 

--Michael Crowley 

Andy Borowitz:

Bill Clinton Switches to Obama: Latest Superdelegate Defection for Hillary

Some people might not be shocked. 

--Michael Crowley

As long as we're doing what-ifs, John Heilemann has an interesting one in his latest column:  

What if Clinton had gone magnanimous on Obama and the Reverend Wright?
The GOP strategist Alex Castellanos offers an intriguing theory about how Hillary might have reacted differently, and more effectively, to the issue that threatened to swallow Obama. “After the Reverend Wright controversy, Obama was suffering the worst press month of his campaign,” he says. “Hillary had a choice. She could have gotten bigger, more presidential, less political; she could have risen to defend Obama, saying, ‘This is outrageous and has no place in politics.’ Instead, she chose to become smaller, more political, less presidential. She diminished the value of the attacks on him by making them hers. Her instincts betrayed her. What if she had chosen to soar above a weakened Obama? That was her moment. And I believe she missed her last great opportunity to win this race.”

Not sure I believe going magnanimous on Wright per se would have helped much. But I think going a little more magnanimous generally during the last two months would have helped. I thought one of her worst moments was when she piled on Obama while he was already getting pummeled by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. She didn't advance the Ayers story a lick, but she did make herself look profoundly unlikeable.

--Noam Scheiber

Time's Tumulty on Hillary's five big mistakes is a good read. But let me offer a candidate for number six: Standing by her Iraq vote. Hillary made it clear that, knowing what she knows now, she would not have voted to authorize the war in October 2002. But she never flat-out apologized for her vote. Let's flash back to February 2007:

One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.

Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats... Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.

In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.

Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

Early in the campaign, Hillary spent a fair amount of time defending and justifying her vote; think back to her discussions about executive authority. In hindsight, I think this may have been a fatal error by her campaign. Iraq was the initial wind under Obama's wings, and really laid the groundwork for his entire candidacy. Democrats wanted someone whose hands were totally unsullied by the war, who could claim to be a break from the Washington thinking that got us there, and who could be a vessel for the primary electorate's pent-up frustrations towards Democrats perceived to have sold out in the early Bush years. Of course, Hillary couldn't have undone her vote.  But taking John Edwards's stark "I was wrong" approach might have blunted the damage. 

One reason Hillary never did this is because some of her key advisors believed disowning her vote would have looked like a Clintonian flip-flop. But the other reason may be that she actually believed in what she was doing.

--Michael Crowley

Two quick, semi-related thoughts:

1.) On the "white Americans" comment, I 80-percent agree with Mike. Hillary was saying something we've all been preoccupied with for months now. It gets more attention when she says it, but you can't pretend it's never come up in polite company. The problem is the implication that non-white Americans aren't hard-working, which, if you're thinking conspiratorially (and who isn't these days), sounds like ugly code.

Whatever the case, the comments were obviously targeted at voters in West Virginia and Kentucky. Now that Obama is almost certain to be the nominee--something the media has blared ceaselessly since Tuesday night--it's possible that working class whites would bow to reality and either vote for him or stay home. Hillary's riff is designed to prevent that.

2.) Why is Hillary so concerned about West Virginia and Kentucky if she can't win the nomination? One reason is to gain leverage for negotiating the terms of her exit with Obama. Another, which Dick Morris wrote about yesterday, is to raise doubts about Obama that will hurt him in the general, making it possible for her to run again in 2012.

Jason sees evidence for Morris's theory in the "white American" comments. I'm not so sure. The Clinton's have already stirred up a lot of ill-will among Democrats. Looking like they're trying to torpedo Obama in the general would massively increase it, and probably make it impossible for her to run again. Or, put differently, if Clinton has any hope of running in 2012, she can't afford much blame for a potential Obama defeat.

My guess is that the leverage theory explains what's going on. Hillary just overreached.

--Noam Scheiber

It's definitely uncomfortable to hear her say it, but if Hillary thinks white Americans won't elect a black president, is it so transgressive for her to say it out loud? Everyone in politics and media has been having this conversation for more than a year now. If anything it seems better than reliance on cutesy euphemisms like "working class" or "electability." I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong but I think it's worth considering this before the latest "race-baiter" pile-on gets underway in earnest.

--Michael Crowley

Tom DeFrank has something I hadn't heard before:

A top Democratic source with insight into Bill's and Hillary's states of mind says the Clintons are convinced that a Democratic presidency is all but certain no matter how messy the fight for the nomination.

In that scenario - which the Obama side and some Democratic elders worry is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst - there's no downside for Hillary doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes.

My earlier understanding was that Hillary refused to quit because she believed Obama would lose to McCain. I didn't see things the same way, but there was a certain nobility to her stubbornness (even if the logic was self-serving). If DeFrank is right and I'm understanding him correctly, Hillary now thinks both she and Obama would win and just wants to claim the prize for herself. It's, uh, not exactly the most principled argument for denying the nomination to the guy who's basically won it.

--Noam Scheiber

Update: Sorry people, a friend who knows from Intrade says I'm looking at the wrong numbers (although even he wasn't sure what the ones below are.) Obama is actually at a more sensible 91.9. McCain's at 95.2.

The Intrade prediction market has Obama surging to nearly 87 percent. Still sounds low to me! (Slate's Hillary DeathWatch now gives her a 2.5 percent shot at the nomination.)

Also: McCain's at 92.6. Is that other 7.4 percent about his age? Vicki Iseman? Or maybe overamplified conservative resentment/denial is distorting the odds...

--Michael Crowley

Clinton held a somewhat Baghdad Bob-ish presser today in which she vowed to press on towards the nomination. Like her aides on this morning's conference call, she reminded people that her husband didn't lock up the nomination until June of 1992. "We tradiitionally have gone longer than you've seen in the last couple of cycles," Hillary said. For those who missed it, this might be a good time to check out Jake Tapper's fact-check which establishes that Bill had it wrapped up by April of '92.

P.S.: Cruel, cruel Milbank:

Clinton sure knows how to pick her locations. For her hastily scheduled appearance in West Virginia - her bid to show her resilience and defiance - she chose a spot made famous as a hospital for the severely wounded.

--Michael Crowley

Here's someone else who found her "robotic and hollow" as she spoke of the upcoming contests last night (but animated while giving valedictory-seeming thanks to her family and supporters). I'm actually a little surprised she's pressing on. Surely even the Clintons can see some point of diminishing returns where the harm to their reputation outweighs whatever tiny chance she has of succeeding. (Unless you buy the idea she simply wants to go out on a high note after WV and KY. But that's a lot of personal dough to spend for a soon-to-be-forgotten high note....)

--Michael Crowley

Since the results came into focus last night, I've heard a couple explanations for why Hillary might stay in the race even though she has no chance of victory. Most of them boil down to proving some sort of point in West Virginia and Kentucky. For example, Tim Russert (I think) suggested that winning big in those states lays the groundwork for a kind of "I told you so" argument for Hillary in 2012 if Obama's loses to McCain.

This morning, Marc Ambinder laid out a variation on that theme:

At the highest levels of the Obama campaign, there is no appetite for any talk of a unity ticket so far. Still, big victories in West Virginia and Kentucky will help Clinton make the argument that she is indispensable.

--Noam Scheiber

Opening what may prove his most challenging conference call of the campaign, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson promises to "talk about how we go forward from here towards the nomination and victory in November."

More: Working with thin gruel, the Clinton team doesn't have much more to offer. Wins in upcoming states, seating Michigan and Florida, and, above all, convincing superdelegates that Hillary is stronger in general election swing states. The latter is pretty all that's left for them.

Also, strategist Geoff Garin insists the gas tax was a winner. He said the campaign's polling showed Hillary even with white voters when the gas tax debate started, and attributes her substantial final edge in that group to the gas fight. He was vaguer about Indiana but noted that Hillary mentioned the issue in her speech there last night, which admittedly isn't something you would likely do if you thought your argument had bombed.    

--Michael Crowley

"Clinton-Obama '08," a unity ticket organization started by ex-Hillary vets, re-filed last week (and unveiled itself yesterday afternoon) as "Vote Both." Says founder Adam Parkhomenko, “originally my goal was to have a place for Clinton-Obama supporters (in that order) to organize,” but now the org's mock banner alternates between reading "Clinton-Obama" and "Obama-Clinton." There aren't any Obama people involved with the project yet, but they "invite everyone to join."

Maybe this is a question for Michelle, but what I wonder is, if there ever could be a unity ticket with Hillary in second slot, could Team Hillary ever accept playing second fiddle to Obama's strategists? 

--Eve Fairbanks

A few days ago I joked that Hillary had come to resemble Mike Huckabee: Deriding elites, playing the populist, campaigning hard in rural areas. But as I get ready to sign off, with Indiana still undecided, it's clear that tonight was at best a major blow for Hillary and at worst a total campaign-ending disaster. A few TV commentators have declared that her campaign is effectively dead either way, but that she may carry on for a while--maybe until June 3--with a purely positive campaign whose last hope is a totally unforced error (a.k.a. "macaca moment") that brings Obama down. And that, of course, is how Mike Huckabee closed out his own campaign--harmlessly traveling around with barely an ill word for John McCain. Hillary's bizarre transformation will have been complete. (That they both lived in the Arkansas governor's mansion makes it that much stranger....)

--Michael Crowley 

Other people seem to know things I don't, but Tim Russert is talking about this race in the past tense and Matt Drudge's headline refers to Obama as "the nominee."

Wow. 

Update: Not at all clear whether those claims reflect inside info or are mere assertions.  

More: Hillary's still out on a limb. The latest email from her campaign, time-stamped 12:35am, begins:

Tonight's victory in Indiana was close, and a margin that narrow means just one thing: every single thing you did to help us win in Indiana helped make the difference.  

--Michael Crowley