Via Kos and Todd Beeton:

On MSNBC a few minutes ago Terry McCauliffe announced the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $10 million online "with 50,000 brand new donors" since the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night. "The biggest day we've ever had." An impressive amount by any measure and, as I wrote last night, a clear sign that people do not want this primary to be over.

BTW, and speaking for me only, Kos is right that it is ridiculous to claim Clinton is winning the popular vote right now. Excluding the caucus states and giving Obama zero votes for Michigan is absurd. We can get an exact count if Iowa, Nevada and Maine release the numbers they have in their possession.

By Big Tent Democrat

Blogometer cites Right Wing blogger Matt Lewis on the so-called Liberal Media:

A close friend of mine (who also happens to be a liberal) is now a frequent [Townhall.com] reader. Why? She's supporting Hillary, and for the first time ever, she and I see eye to eye on things like the liberal media. She has always viewed herself as a liberal, but now she is seeing first-hand just how quixotic and dangerous the Obama supporters are."

This is bad reasoning. Being pro-Obama as the Media is does not make the Media liberal. The Media shares the Wingnut hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Media is not ideological. They are not conservative or liberal. They are merely biased and incompetent.

There is no evidence that Barack Obama is more liberal (or progressive if you prefer) than Hillary Clinton. There is not a dime's worth of difference on the issues (other than health care) between them and it is undeniable that Obama is the High Broder Unity Schtick candidate. I have said it often, there is nothing more unfathomable to me than the notion that Barack Obama is the Great Progressive Hope.

You might be familiar with my posts on Boehlert's Revenge. I am now adding a corollary to it - when you embrace, encourage and accept the narrative that Hillary Clinton is an atrocious person and public servant that no real Democrat could possibly support, you become open to this interpretation of electoral results:

[T]he implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama.

When you argue, embrace, encourage or accept the argument that no one could possibly support Hillary Clinton for any reasons other than racism, you invite the logical conclusion that any vote for Clinton is in fact anti-Obama.

John Aravosis links to a Dr. Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation on the Clinton "umbrella of deterrence" proposal. Aravosis quotes Dr. Lewis saying things that strike me as not only wrong, but nuts. Dr. Lewis provides three rules: [More...]

More essential reading from Adam Liptak -- the lead paragraph says it all:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

The U.S. leads the world in imprisoning its population: 751 people are in prison for every 100,000 in the population. Russia comes in second, with 627 out of 100,000 behind bars. The numbers for England and Germany are 151 and 88 per 100,000, respectively. Why are the U.S. numbers so high?

Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

How is America's "lock 'em up" mentality perceived in the rest of the world? (more ...)

Hunter writes (Let me give credit to Oliver Willis for a shrewd reaction to the PA results ("Yes, Clinton won. Doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.") Calm and cool is the approach for Obama and his supporters imo.)

The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) There also is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates. Hunter is offended that the Clinton campaign is arguing why the superdelegates should support Clinton. I am hard pressed to understand his outrage. Would he have them argue for superdelegates supporting Obama? Of all the blog outbursts at the Clinton campaign, being enraged at the Clinton camp for arguing for support from the superdelegates strikes me as among the most unreasonable. More . . .

Tom Hayden's wife does not like Hillary Clinton. Because of that, Tom Hayden wants Hillary to quit the race. And he wants the Democratic Establishment and others to join him and his wife in the screaming:

Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.

Some progressives believe in talking at the ballot box. With votes. 2.3 million Democrats in Pennsylvania did their talking yesterday at the ballot box. Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by 10 points and over 200,000 votes. I am sorry that the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania giving voice to their views sends Tom Hayden and his wife into childish temper tantrums, but the Democratic voters of the country will not be cowed by the screaming of the Elites. Let the people vote.

By Big Tent Democrat

If you have been reading this site, you know that we have made the case that demography is political destiny in the Democratic Presidential contest. In every contest, Barack Obama has won 90% of the African American vote. In almost every contest, he has had trouble cracking 40% of the white working class vote, seniors and women.

Pennsylvania was no different. Obama won 89% of the African American vote. But only 38% of the white vote. He lost white women by nearly 2-1

12 million dollars in ads from Obama did not change this at all. The very real question that has been there throughout remains. Can Obama capture white working class voters critical to PA, OH, MI, etc.? North Carolina will not be where the Media pays attention to this. Indiana will be where the question is posed again. I'll explain why on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat

The Media Elite despises the voters. They are, in the parlance of Leona Helmsley, the "little people," to them. Look at Maureen Dowd's contempt for regular Democratic voters:

“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”

Dowd's response?

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. ... You can go in an old blue shoe. Just go, go, GO!”

Like Russert, Dowd likes to tout her working class roots, but like Russert, she is now part of the Nantucket/Hamptons summer place elite. Those "little people" called the voters are an irritation to them. More . . .

And it's on to Indiana, and perhaps, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is an open thread.

Hillary has broken the 200,000 vote margin with 93% of the Pennsylvania vote in.

Her campaign raised more than $2,500,000. since the polls closed. (Via John King on CNN, who received the information from her campaign.)

Obama's Indiana party was slow, there were empty seats.

Obama got trounced in the rural counties and by blue collar Dems and Reagan/Casey Dems, by Catholics, women, older voters, religious voters and gun owners.[More...]

The NYTimes jumped the gun:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Um, no. sorry NYTimes, the record breaking 2,000,000 Democratic voters of Pennsylvania decided to not be dictated to by you or any one else when they voted Hillary Clinton to a decisive 10 point, 200,000 vote margin victory. Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is time for the elites of this country to stop disrespecting the voters. Let the voters vote. It is their right. Respect the will of the people please.

By Big Tent Democrat