Reporting Facts, Not Opinions

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I think most readers of Talk Left know that it is my opinion that because Florida and Michigan will not have a revote, Hillary Clinton's chances to win the nomination are slim at best. The key point here is it is my opinion, not a fact. And it does not become a fact because 3 other bloggers, Politico and NBC have the same opinion. You know what it is? Conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is usually right. Sometimes it is not. It is not a fact. It is an opinion. Yesterday I wrote:

[H]ere's the rub - it is just [Politico reporter Ben] Smith's analysis. It is frankly absurd to hear people, like NBC and the Left blogs, say Clinton should drop out because WE think she can not catch up. Who are we to decide what the voters will do? The voters get to decide. Not the pundits. Not NBC. Not the Left blogs.

But contempt for the voters, of Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and beyond is the new watchword for Obama supporters - from NBC on down. It is quite unseemly imo.

In a much noted piece, the now "loved in the Left blogs" Jim van den Hei and John Harris (hilarious how much respect they garnered from this one piece in some circles) now have the NEW math on the Democratic nomination fight:

[L]et’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) Let's assume van den Hei and Harris are in fact providing Hillary's "best case scenario[,]" which is "unlikely." (Pennsylvania and West Virginia polling certainly provide Clinton some solace on this score). That means that even in THEIR opinion, there is an unlikely scenario in which Clinton wins. And they have to admit it:

Harold Ickes, an icon of the Democratic Party who is Clinton’s chief delegate strategist, points out that every previous forecast about this race has been faulty.

Asked about the Obama campaign’s contention that it’s mathematically impossible for Clinton to win, Ickes replied: “They can’t count. At the end of it, even by the Obama campaign’s prediction, neither candidate will have enough delegates to be nominated.”

This is true, as a matter of math.

(Emphasis supplied.) Here is the problem - Obama has not finished Clinton off and it does not look like he will in Pennsylvania. Obama successfully blocked revotes in Florida and Michigan effectively disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida (yes not a word of concern about this expressed by the Obama bloggers or the Obama television network - no Special Comments scheduled.) And as much as Keith Olbermann and Politico and the Left Obama blogs want Clinton to go away (heck I do too) - Obama has to finish this contest off.

WIN Pennsylvania and the race is over.

WIN Kentucky or West Virginia and the race is over.

Heck, win Indiana and the race is probably over.

Obama has the most favorable playing field for the nomination (as for the general election, that is another story) - he excluded Florida and Michigan. (Clinton bungled the pr on that issue in my opinion.) His path is easier now. But let's let him walk it please. Denying the voters their say is the new watchword for Obama supporters I know, but must all parts of the Media also insist upon it?

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Late Night: Everybody Knows | Colorado Appeals Court: Actors Can't Smoke on Stage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    People are excited that their votes matter (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:34:21 AM EST
    The voters in these last 10 (9?) states will make a difference for the first time in many, many years.

    Obama and the DNC have successfully blocked the voters from 2 major states.  Why the push to block the rest?

    I think Obama is terrified that ending the nomination race with a steady string of losses combined with the doubts raised by the Wright Issue will put the legitimacy of his nomination at risk.

    The Super delegates (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:44:07 AM EST
    won't be impressed with a steady stream of losses!  The Super delegates will be scared.  The Super delegates are going to have to finish this.  The Politico story leaves out the fact also that Obama is being hit by a political meteor, which is what they say in the piece that could "change" everything.

    Now there's an analysis I'd like (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    Numbers versus Perceptions

    I'll admit that Obama can win on math alone.  I'll admit that it's unlikely that Clinton can win on the math alone.

    The perception of winning well and winning strong are important as well.  What does each candidate need to do to come up with the strongest, cleanest win in this primary?

    I find Clinton's campaign recently to be interesting.  She seems to know when to fight and fight hard and when to STFU.  Ferraro's gaffe(That was one gift wrapped sound bite.) to help drive the point home that there's nothing she can gain by talking about race.  Then the Wright controversy gave her the perfect opening to talk about race, but she passed.  Wise move, especially with the Iraq anniversary and economy tanking - plenty of pressing issues to talk about.  

    I might agree with everything Hillary does or says, but I must admit that she does know how to play the game.


    Should she win the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:51:05 AM EST
    she will regret remaining silent during that controversy.  This was a chance to unify the party.

    Obama voters will remember it, and they will absolutely take it out on her in November.

    I think Hillary can win the nomination.  I don't think she can win the General Election without Obama on the ticket.  In fact, I think she might get blown out by McCain.


    I agree with BTD (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    that if Hillary is the nominee, Obama is certain to be the VP. I'm less sure about the other way around.

    I have the same notion (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    and I'm not happy about it either.  If he doesn't put Clinton on his ticket I think he'll have spent a generous portion of our political capital in the race with the Repubs before stuff even starts hitting the fan.

    He won't take (4.00 / 1) (#50)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM EST

    And I won't blame him for it.

    She is going to regret the silence over the Wright affair.


    Of course he will (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    and her silence over the Wright affair is all that could have been expected. What, you wanted her to help him?

    It's the Obama rules (5.00 / 11) (#65)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, should be fighting to give the nomination for Obama. Anything less is an outrage.

    Again, what could she have said on the (5.00 / 10) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:27:43 AM EST
    Wright issue? How could she side with the guy who said Bill did the country like he did Monica? How could she side with the guy who said we deserved 9/11? What did you expect her to do?

    What could she have said? (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    I mean, really, is Obama supposed to defend Hillary for everyone she has associated with for the past twenty years?

    I wouldn't want to comment on something I didn't know anything about.  The two people who knew the situation most intimately are Wright and Obama.  Those are the two that people should address questions to.  


    Obama supporter? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    <blockquote>She is going to regret the silence over the Wright affair. </blockquote>

    What does this mean?  I have read this everywhere.  Is that  because Hillary did not defend Wright, she will never get the AA vote?

    Back in February, when I was doing calls for Hillary, I got lots of what I now call the silent democrats, tell me they will not be Democrats anymore and not to expect their vote in the G E after what Obama has done to the party.  These people don't write blogs, they don't go to rallies, they don't swoon or get awed, they are the base.  

    If I am having difficulties with the GE, I tell you, if HIllary drops out, these people, like me will simply not participate in the GE.  


    If I recall... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    ...she said his speech was a 'good speech', 'glad he made it'... etc

    halfway expect someone to claim she should've washed his feet too


    Her (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    silence over the Wright affair?  What exactly was she supposed to do?  Really, the Obama people sound more like Bush supporters everyday.  That wasn't Hillary's scandal to address.

    Are you saying Obama has come to Hillary's rescue whenever she's faced a smearing during the campaign?  Name one time that he's supported her against false charges, except of course the Samantha Powers debacle in which he really had no choice--it was so egregious.  


    I would like to know (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    what people would like her to have said in the time between when the Wright footage came out (deliberately smearing her) and the time of Obama's speech (which she applauded) to the time of the picture of Bill Clinton and Wright, released from the campaign of 'hope' for some strangely cynical reason in order to...(on this I am still unsure) smear Wright and Clinton?  The best I would expect is that she stick up for Obama against right-wing attacks.  But last time she did that, the focus was entirely on "as far as I know."  

    I don't think Clinton has to fawn all over Barack Obama because his odds are better than hers.


    Obama is going to deeply regret (5.00 / 11) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    his continued silence over the sexism HIllary has been subjected to, in the media, by Obama surrogates and supporters, and by Obama himself.

    We've been saying this for months now.

    The Obama supporter response: not our problem. Why should Obama not take advantage of the sexism, why should he speak out to help his opponent in any way?  That it would help him with women voters never occurred to him; he just assumes that women, the largest bloc of loyal Democratic voters, would have to get behind him eventually, and that he could possibly appease them by choosing a woman running mate. One Obama supporter on this very board said, he's got Oprah, Maria, and Caroline, he has them hold rallies for him, he's pro-choice - what more do women want?

    We also told you this was crazy thinking and also extremely clueless.

    Obama has royally offended many women. He never says a word about sexism. He doesn't have any kind of record on women's issues (being pro-choice doesn't count, that's a Dem core issue that is simply assumed).

    So now you want Hillary to defend him when his pastor has been exposed as another sexist who's also a hate-preaching racist?

    Sorry. That ship has sailed.


    Sexism is more insidious (4.20 / 5) (#245)
    by leonid on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    People don't realize it but sexism is the more insidious bigotry. I once read a blog post by a white male Obama supporter congratulating himself and his fellow Democratic Obama supporters for finally overcoming racism. He couldn't, of course, stop at simply praising himself. He had to take a shot at Clinton. He stated that Hillary was really only running as a proxy for a third term for Bill. He indulged in the basic bigotry that women don't really have lives or opinions of their own, that they are just extensions of their husbands or brothers or fathers. He wrote it without any apparent recognition of the inherent sexism. He was congratulating himself for overcoming one form of bigotry while engaging in another, oblivious to the irony.

    I regret Obama's silence (4.55 / 9) (#145)
    by standingup on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM EST
    when Hillary and Chelsea Clinton were being treated horribly by some of the staff at MSNBC.  His silence on that issue was very telling.  

    What could she possibly have said? There (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    was no reason to defend Obama. His connection to the guy screaming "God D**n America" did not deserve defense. Anything she said or did would have been interpreted as racist anyway.

    Smear the Clinton's (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    Wright was on the pulpit saying incredibly vulgar things about the Clinton's.  What was she supposed to do.... under no circumstances were his comments appropriate.  Wright should apologize to the Clintons.  What I remember very clearly is Obama's inability to address the issue.

    What he said about HRC was bad.  What he sais about WJC was disgusting.  It wasn't just an attact on Clinton, it was one of those 'the white man 'did' the black people.


    The "riding dirty" bit (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    really turned my stomach.  It's a visceral reaction, not an intellectual one.  I could see a vulgar comedian doing that, but a man of G_d?   It reminds me entirely too much of the religious leaders who blame gays when people die by violence or natural disasters.  It's blatant reframing  - don't talk about the real issue, but change the subject to the one you want to talk about.   I'm not talking religion, I'm talking hate mongering.

    I grew up a social justice Catholic.  We didn't have those types of sermons in my Church and I'm glad that we didn't.  I'd rather hear "Love thy neighbor." instead of "Scapegoat thy neighbor.".


    Amen... (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    Particularly after the Obama campaign put out the picture that Wright was in the White House when Clintion was doing his public contrition.  A preacher violating one of the main Christian tenets of forgiving.  That really put me over the top.  There are some core human values and religious hypocrisy is about the least forgivable. Up to that I did not give a hoot about Wright, but this was really hateful.  

    Obama got that picture (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EST
    only with Wright's consent.  That was his property.  There is no way they would release the picture and the invitation without his express consent.  I thought he was on a cruise/sabbatical and Obama said on Larry King there had been no communication with him.  Really?  Then how did they get permission?

    The photo brought up Lewinsky, who doesn't need any embarrassment, she has moved on with her life.  Not caring about her, reminded me of how he reacted to Halloway.  This was all over the news, the comments he made about Halloway, so there is no way Obama didn't know about these comments.

    OK, that was so OT.  This is just relevant to me for the GE and goes to perception rather than numbers.


    Precisely. (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by 0 politico on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    There really is no way for her to defend him without possibly shooting herself in the foot.  Besides, though she never said anything overtly racist, BO surrogates and the media were all too happy to smear her campaign.  Further, Wright's comments, whether taken out of context (as BO and many supporters have claimed), appear to be anti-American hate speech to the average person.  This was stuff that was out there for quite some time.  People, including the media and the progressive blogs just ignored it.  How does she defend that without losing voters the Dems need?  Would the BO campaign take anything she said as supportive, or would they use it to deflect attention and criticism from him?

    As for the joint ticket, up to about two weeks ago, I would have said it was a good idea.  This would work if it was a HC/BO ticket.  I don't think it would have worked the other way around.  Despite what his supporters think, experience is important and he needs seasoning (witness the last two weeks, even with the speech, his sub committee chairmanship).  What good would  the experience on the ticket do as the VP?  Look at what we have now in the WH.  Additionally, HC would have to pass up on any future presidential aspirations.  If a BO/HC administration fell flat, she would have no chance as a candidate in 2012.  If it succeeds, then she would be perceived by many as "too old" to run in 2016.  Grandpa in the WH may be okay for many voters, but ask them if they want grandma as their new president.

    The question for BO now is:  Can the damage of his relationship with Rev. Wright, and his and his surrogates' verbal miscues, be limited enough from here on out that he does not appear toxic to middle America?  If so, he might keep his campaign afloat.  If not, then he may not make any ticket.  Remember, Rev, Wright is an association made as an adult choice.  And, BO has shown he is willing to diss his maternal grandmother.  Perhaps BO's search for a father figure and ethnic identity were very strong.  But, his choices on friends and associates will be questionable to many.


    0 politico (2.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    What do you think about Clinton's prayer group? What does it mean to you that she attends sex-segregated prayer groups, and that her fellow religious participants are all very reactionary? It seems to me that she's got issues with her religionists. It explains why Clinton would be a co-sponsor of the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act," which would protect pharmacists against being fired for not filling prescriptions for birth control pills, or not firing security guards who won't protect abortion clinics.

    I think that Obama's given an explanation of his attendance in Wright's church, but Clinton won't talk about her prayer group now.


    Is anyone selling recordings (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    of the prayer groups for fame and profit?

    Or is that nonprofit?  Hmmm, anyone know where the proceeds of the good Reverend go?


    Change (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    Have you read anything beyond the Obama hype on this?  Do you think that we should as Democrats be working to bridge the political acrimony?  Do you believe that bipartisanship is a good idea?  
    Well, while some folks talk about it, some folks have been doing it.  

    Atlrantic Article
    Read this:  

    One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback's turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. "I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith," Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. "But I'm overcome now with only one thought." He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, "Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?" Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

    "It was an extraordinary moment," the member told me.

    This repentance fostered an unlikely relationship that has yielded political bounty. Clinton and Brownback went on to cosponsor one measure protecting refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects on children of violent video games and television shows. "That morning helped make our working relationship," Brownback told me recently. "It brought me close to someone I did not ever imagine I would become close to." Since then, Clinton has teamed up on legislation with many members of the prayer group.

    Stellaaa this fits into (none / 0) (#187)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    something I've been thinking about.  I'm looking at the story now.  Thanks for sharing it.

    Heh...you the same Katiebird (none / 0) (#197)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    at Confluence?

    Yes.... (none / 0) (#204)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:04:39 PM EST

    Kewl.... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    (smiling) (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST

    Did the prayer group do anything wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by dianem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    I don't think that anybody has problems with Obama attending a church, even a more or less (not completely) segregated church. The problem is that his spiritual adviser has some ideas about America that are far from the mainstream views, and that Obama has not spoken out against those views. The problem is that a lot of people find these views offensive and are having doubts about a candidate that didn't speak out about those views until he was forced to by circumstance.

    Far From Mainstream (1.00 / 1) (#243)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    You mean that he is Black?

    Monsignor Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani and the priest who officiated at his second wedding to Donna Hanover?

    And Romney's church has some real dandy ideas.

    And of course we can't leave out the most mainstream of them all Jerry Fallwell who blamed 9/11 on America.

    Rev. Rod Parsley, McCain's spiritual advisor says says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." And America was founded to destroy Islam.

    And the other mainstreamer's John Hagee, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the famous hit parade of mainstreamers the Bakers,
    Father Ritter, etc....

    The only difference is between the mainstream American opinion in the name of religion, and Rev. Wright's opinion in the name of religion is that he is Black.

    Double standard?


    what is wrnog with sex segregated prayer? (none / 0) (#136)
    by SarahinCA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    Please, enlighten me.  I would like to know why this is something to be up in arms about.  I'm guessing you think we should never elect a muslim or a pre-Vatican III Catholic, either?

    Obama has missed more chances than Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    When it comes to unity Obama has missed more chances.

    Drudge photo?  The bogus racist attacks on the Clintons?  Ferraro?  The bogus claims about the 3am ad?  The 60 minutes interview?  In all these cases Obama could have spoken up and said those were distractions from the issues but he didn't, instead he pressed the attacks or ignored them.

    Obama has been using race issues as a weapon against Clinton this whole campaign.   Yes, it would be nice if she would join him on this one but I don't blame her for sitting it out.  I don't know how he can mend this if he is the nominee but he could start by showing a willingness to go through the rest of the process and stopping the negative campaigning.  I am not getting a good feeling about the GE.  Have you taken a look at the latest SUSA polls?  Even MA is in play now with Obama as the nominee.

    The best both campaigns can do is to try to get back to issues and McCain as soon as possible.


    After the Wright flap... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST
    I think Obama is more likely to lose in a landslide to McCain and also take down a lot of our congressional candidates in swing districts.

    I think you are underestimating the long-term impact of Wright and Obama's subsequent remarks to Philly Sports Radio.


    It was (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    not a chance to unify the party.  She cannot unify the party because the Party is against HER!  Had she made a big issue of the Geraldine Ferraro comment (which was a comment Obama has made himself and that Kerry and McCaskill and others in the Party have now made) it would have boomeranged back on her.  Geraldine Farraro was not a surrogate for Hillary.  She was not speaking at a campaign event or in an interview.  Samantha Powers was a top advisor for Obama, little bit different thing.  Clinton condemned the remark, Ferraro resigned, no harm no foul.  

    Admit it, the only thing Hillary could possibly do to please Obama followers is to drop out of the race.

    Are you saying but for the Geraldine Ferraro comment--which Obama blew up to counter Powers' monster comment--you would happily support Hillary if she is the candidate?  


    She's been set up... (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    ...because the punditocracy has solidly fallen in line with the Obama campaign and the notion that the only way she can unify the party is to drop out of the race.

    Which begs the question of why Mr. Unity can't do this all on his own but apparently needs Clinton to precipitate a unified party?

    I should add that Clinton dropping out due to arm-twisting by Obama cheerleaders will do more to divide the party than if she was allowed to continue unfettered.  Bad enough he is now back to his "MI and FL broke the rules" crap.


    my take is she did not remain (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    silent on the issue.  She made a statement and it was enough. This then made it an Obama issue, not as everyone wants to believe, but that's how I see it. It was smart politics.

    In re Obama supporters, or most, there is nothing they can find about Hillary that will temper their hate.  Nothing


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#191)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    "In re Obama supporters, or most, there is nothing they can find about Hillary that will temper their hate.  Nothing"

    Absolutely.  She could come up with the cure for cancer and the response would be 'this just proves she's willing to say or do anything to win'


    And he could discover a cancer cure... (3.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    ...and the Clinton people would find some reason to dengigrate it, as well.

    This campaign has a become a painful joke, a race between two people who don't seem to have a clue.

    Hillary is an enabler, Obama a naive soothsayer.  Take your pick.

    But the people on both sides claiming their sh*t doesn't stink, or the other side's stinks worse, please, it's just farcical.  If both these candidates really cared about the COUNTRY, and with the FL and MI debacles in play, then they'd summit, really unite (you hear me, Obama), and agree that either way they are the ticket -- one will be prez the other VP.  That is what the country needs now, not another useless campaign season full of empty bullsh*t.

    As for Wright, there couldn't be a more empty issue on the table.  Becaue EVERYBODY, ON EVERY SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, says or thinks "God damn America" at some point.  The righties say God damn America for gays and abortion and sex, etc.  The left says it for our pathological war-making and malevolence abroad.

    Anyone, on either said, using Wright as some kind of measure of anything are frauds, completely dishonest about the often times ugly nature of all of our "humanity."


    To this, I can only say (none / 0) (#212)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    where was Obama when the press was slamming Hillary with every sexist comment they could? I know many people who are angry at his behavior, specifically, and the atmosphere in general. With gems like this, can you blame them?

    "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

    "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."

    "Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and nonperformance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways." I guess sexism isn't such a big issue for him.

    Frankly, when you're campaigning, you don't defend your competition. That's not how the game of politicking is played. Hillary knows that, Obama knows that. It's awful, it's disgusting, it's sad. But, right now, it's true.

    You can't fault him without faulting Obama. Both sides have reason to be angry.


    sure seems like his numbers are tanking (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    see SurveyUSA Main Page today

    Rasmussen Reports says...On Friday, Obama's favorable ratings remain little changed from recent days--48% favorable, 50% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. The number with a Very Unfavorable opinion of Obama has increased from 26% a week ago to 33% today.

    Which suggests that his speech on Tuesday simply had no effect other than perhaps slowing his slide.

    Clearly there is no motivation for HRC to pull out at this point.


    Media Spin (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    The media are reporting the speech as a recovery.  Just this morning I am hearing.. 65% agree with Obama on race.  70% are not offended by what has been said.  That means 35% don't agree and 30% are offended.  I have to go to Fox to have any information on what else in going on in the polls.

    I will give MSNBC a little credit, they did allow one talking head to say that the numbers of people unwilling to vote for Obama is higher than the numbers unwilling to vote for Clinton.  and not referring to just the PN poll.  Chuck Todd said the change in the votes from here on out, the change in the polls, etc. will be taken in to account by the superdeez.

    She may not win the popular vote (at this point it seems irrelevant to try and predict turnout as the states are too variable) but if there is a change in the vote from here on out, that is a serious factor imho.


    I heard (none / 0) (#113)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    something similar on CBS last night.  They reported that 72% agreed with his speech.  I don't know where those numbers are coming from because I saw very different numbers on Thursday.  57% of all voters said they are less likely to vote for him.

    With what would they disagree? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    Obama gets up there and says we have a history of tense race relations the persist to this day.  I'm gonna disagree with that?  No kidding.

    As usual, he leaves out the part where he offers a solution.  


    That was the CBS poll only... (none / 0) (#150)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    most others, including RASS daily tracking, Gallup daily tracking and SUSA disagree.

    Gallup tracking (none / 0) (#241)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    shows Obama has recovered and now leads Clinton 48-45. Before Obama's speech he was down 49-42.  That is a ten point turnaround since the speech.

    RASS got even worse (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    for Obama today.

    On Saturday, Obama's favorable ratings slipped a little further--46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable.

    He may have to, and should, drop that whole talking point about Hillary's unfavorables.


    Yeah, the thing that always gets (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by frankly0 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    me is that the Obama camp is so very, very desperate to have Hillary throw in the towel, claiming that she should because she can't possibly win.

    But if she can't possibly win, and they are so very confident of that, why not take the attitude instead that the very best possible thing for Obama is to have on record a final, undeniable, decisive win? Isn't such a win the best way to convince Democrats who may have supported Hillary that Obama is, without question, the legitimate winner, and therefore they should rally behind that winner?

    If on every sensible metric, Hillary has lost, isn't that the strongest possible case the Obama camp could make both to the superdelegates and Hillary's supporters that they need to get behind Obama? Why does the Obama camp want to settle for anything less than that compelling sort of case?


    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST
    Has there ever been an election where supporters of the front-runner implied that the very campaign of the other candidate was an insult?

    Has any candidate been pressured like this to drop out?


    His campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    ...knows full well that Clinton is still a contender and he can still lose this race - talking points notwithstanding.

    Meanwhile, McCain went out of his way to encourage Huckabee's campaign simply because he knew there was zero chance of him locking up the nomination.


    If they count all the votes and he wins, (4.66 / 3) (#52)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    it would be easier for me to get behind him. I will anyway, but I won't be as happy about it.

    One thing I have noticed this week is that seeing the right attack Obama so viciously has made me want to defend him. I don't like seeing Democrats attacked so there is hope that there are others like me who will feel differently when Obama is running against McCain rather than our choice, Hillary.

    I can forgive Obama because he is a politician but the media can kiss my butt forever.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    can forgive Obama, but I can not.

    I think he is just using the Democratic party to further his own agenda.  I'm not convinced he is a real Democrat.  I've NEVER heard him say anything about a unified party in November if she wins.

    I will also remember the line from Michelle Obama that she might support Hillary, I will remember his "you're likeable enough Hillary" during the debate.

    How about 'her supporters will vote for me, but I'm not sure mine will vote for her' to paraphrase.

    How about no voting in Florida and Michigan - guess it's part of his 48 STATE strategy.


    Obama was asked about Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    on Larry King.  He was asked if he would consider her for VP.  He uh-d quite a few times, said it was premature, uh-some more and responded in an energetic, snarky way 'she is smart' and was dismissive.  His intent was clearly she was smart in a negative way about running a campaign and that is all that he will give her.

    She would never (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    take the VP slot.

    As Pelosi said (none / 0) (#144)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    Clinton's low-road attack on Obama's "inexperience" in picking up the phone at 3 a.m., all the while fluffing up McCain, who doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia (or, worse, forgot) has eliminated any possibility of a joint ticket.

    I'm not sure that Clinton brings any strength to an Obama ticket. If she's so poisoned the well that he doesn't win the normally Dem strongholds then he won't win. Her presence will only be a reminder of all the things said. If Obama wants to have a national security figure on his ticket, why not Senator Reed from Rhode Island?


    More mythmaking... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    ...if she is so 'poisoned' why is she polling ahead of Obama?  Why are his negatives nearly the same as hers?

    right, because (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by SarahinCA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    if dem strongholds won't go for Obama after they've overwhelmingly gone to Clinton, it's her fault.  This "logic" you have working here is fancy.

    Get Out Your Handkerchiefs :-( (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    Obama's not winning many of the normally Democratic strongholds as it is. Clinton is. The Dem base is supporting her. Obama's bringing in "Dems for a Day" and winning in places like Alabama and Idaho, which no Democrat has a snowball's chance of capturing in November.

    Obama has poisoned his own well.


    I happen to agree (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:35:28 PM EST
    Obama is inexperienced.  I could care less what Pelosi says.  She is so biased against Clinton it isn't funny.  She resents Clinton going to China as a civil rights issue way back when.  She resents Clinton's speech as that was an issue she wanted for her own and she resents a Clinton candidacy because it would overshadow her legacy as Speaker.

    oh sas, don't remind me of that stuff. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    You make my new vow to be a loyal Democrat hard.

    Well maybe you will get over that feeling (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by abfabdem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    if you visit Kos and see how the Obama supporters are trashing the Clintons.  It is scary the level of vitriol he has unleashed there.  You would think he would step in to control it, but he seems to be fanning it.  .

    Here's an idea,,, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    Clinton campaign calculates a conservative estimate of what the popular vote in Michigan and Florida would be based on recent polling and turnout models this year. Then uses this number in popular vote totals.

    Just because there isn't a re-vote doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable / fair way to guage support of the two of the five largest Democratic states. It would be unreasonable not to hear from them or take their opinion into account.

    Everything the Clinton campaign says needs to be about how NEITHER campaign can win through the delegate route and how the FAIREST way to declare a winner is to determine who has the most votes.

    At this point, the best thing the Clinton campaign can do is to step back and realize that 95% of people don't read Politico, watch msnbc, or have any idea about the nuances of the delegate argument inside the Obamedia echo chamber. Most people, however, do understand that its not a real national election if two of the five largest states aren't counted. The popular vote argument and counting MI and FL through alternative calculations is simple, reasonable, and will be compelling to the vast majority of Americans.

    The superdeez will be (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    I'm sure the Clinton campaign is, but Clinton doesn't need to.  I would imagine everyone is doing this, from each campaign, pollsters, analysts, the DNC (and ordinary people like me.)  The superdeez would have a hard time nominating someone who has dropped severely in the vote and polls.

    You speak reasonably (none / 0) (#131)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    (erm, WRITE)

    But the fact is that if the Super D's vote for Hillary and give her the Nomination when she is behind in Delegates and Primary voters (via Obamath), then we will likely see a huge screaming tantrum at the convention, with shenanigans not seen since 1968.

    Details of GE states likely to vote for a Dem won't matter.
    Details of national polls and 'momentum' won't matter.
    Polls showing Hillary having a better chance versus McCain won't matter.

    NOTHING will matter to the frothing merry pranxters who support Obama; they are the smallest minority of his supporters, but you can BET that the networks will ensure that they get the most air time.

    You have to wonder if the Super D's will fall for this unspoken blackmail that's been floating around. Will they vote for the best candidate, or will they vote for the best convention atmosphere?

    At some point you have to put the crabby baby to bed, no matter how much you know they will cry and scream.


    I envison... (none / 0) (#169)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    ...a rerun of the WTO protests complete with chairs tossed through Starbucks windows.

    your assumptions are faulty (none / 0) (#171)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    If this comes down to convention, a floor fight and super delegates, then whatever the outcome, there will be some hard feelings and discontent...just like 1968.

    The more remembered part of 1968 was not that McCarthy didn't get the nomination and Hubert Humphrey did but rather the anti-war demonstrations that were so brutally cut down by hizzoner Richard J. Daley. The whole world WAS watching.

    If you are suggesting that the youth for Obama will become as raucous as the anti-war protestors of 1968, I think you are mistaken. The youth of today didn't even bother showing up for anti-war protests held last week.

    Given the main stream predilection towards artificially created arguments, they will prominently feature discord and pump it up to make it seem more important...such is their lot.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#190)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    The breathless fear of what might happen at the Convention is getting a little annoying.

    Of course, we are going to have that type of problem at the Convention. We almost always have some type of protest at our conventions. (So do the Republicans but they are more ruthless in suppressing them. Remember NYC.)

    I refuse to be intimidated.


    I'm not intimidated (none / 0) (#201)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    I still think we should get Clinton in there. I just wonder what the repercussions will be with 24-7 coverage of the 'Dem Party in Crisis' with 75 soy-bomb protesters screaming about the GREAT CLINTON CONSPIRACY into the mike of every willing tv correspondent.

    Sigh. Yeah, it is probably not going to happen that way. Cooler heads must prevail.


    I really hope you're right (none / 0) (#196)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    And I hope the Super D's remember that too.

    Apathetic Youth of America, Unite!


    Depends. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Saul on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    I honestly feel that the Wright incident and the She a typical white person incident will be with Obama from here on out.  I think Obama is on a downward spiral with independents and the white population.  If this get real bad for Obama from here to July the supers will HAVE to weigh the whole election on who is more electable and the most pledge delgate decsion will have to be placed on the back burner.  What goods is it to have most pledge, a little more PV but when you know you cannot win the GE.  In case people forgot winning the GE is the only purpose of this election for the democrats.  How it gets done I am not concerned with that just win it.  

    Depends on the voters (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:41:08 AM EST
    My point exactly. Why don't we let tham have a say in this election?

    This is the point where (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    someone is supposed to mumble something incoherent about the roolz.

    Yup. I don't buy (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    the Obama will lose practically all the states in November in a historic landslide.  But I think he'll lose the Midwest, except for Illinois, and only win the deep blue states.  Nothing like 270 EVs.

    Very yuk.


    I very much disagree (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    with the notion that conventional wisdom in presidential politics is right.  If there is one thing that defines conventional wisdom it is this: a complete lack of any sense of historical perspective.  This manifests itself in two related ways:

    1.  A consistent underestimation of the volatility in a race.
    2.  A complete failure to understand that the primary fight is a dynamic process in which a larger numbers of variables are in play than commonly understood.

    I would not limit this observation to politics - you can see the same process at work in the financial markets (as in, real estate is going up 20% a year, so if I buy a house and flip it I can make tons of money, and real estate will never go down so there is no risk).

    So what the hell does this have to do with the current race?  First, I think the increasing concerns over the economy are working to help Clinton.  The Clinton campaign has never understood that they are making the wrong argument about experience (its still the economy stupid) but they may be actually beginning to see it.
    Second, elections during recessions are extremely volatile.  The last two elections to occur during economic distress where as wild as you get (1992 and 1980).  
    All of this can produce unpredictable and large shifts in voter sentiment.  If Hillary starts to pile up a series of 20 point wins, the narrative of this race is going to change very quickly.
    Obama must be considered the favorite at this point, and should he win North Carolina Hillary may have trouble keeping this race alive.  But I would not underestimate her chances in NC, and a win there would remake this race again.

    People have forgotten that (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09:36 AM EST
    Bill Clinton did not wrap up the nomination until June of 1992 - in terms of the actual primary season, it was no longer than this one - but the difference is that the campaigning did not start more than a year before the voting - that's what's making this seem like it will just never end.

    I also think people have to stop thinking of the nomination as the finish line, and that's where I see a difference between Clinton and Obama.  Lately, he has become so focused on getting her out of the race that he has lost sight of what it is going to take to defeat McCain in November.  She, on the other hand, seems to me to be focused on winning the voters she will need to stick with her in November, solidifying that Democratic base, and sharpening her general election strategy.  And I think you will be seeing more of this, while Obama, I think, might as well just have Jeremiah Wright velcro'd to his leg as he tries to move forward.  That is going to continue to hurt him - and I believe that if he prevails on the basis of a 48-state strategy and superdelegates who have been strong-armed into voting for him when the momentum and big picture is clearly on Clinton's side, I think he will start the general election behind in every state he must win, and it will be all downhill from there.  The GOP has already said - Jeremiah Wright is their path to the WH.

    I've watched enough football games over the years, where the announcers start out fawning all over the favorite, only to see them jump onto the other team's bandwagon and completely change their coverage, to know that the same thing can and will happen here if things shift Clinton's way.


    NC seems relevant (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:06 AM EST
    Demographics say Obama should win this by 20.  If Clinton comes within 2, this indicates an issue to me.

    I agree with the end of your comment (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    But the problem is there is no winning narrative for Clinton at the end - she won't have a PV lead or a PD lead.

    The will of the people will be deemed to be for Obama.


    I think the Florida situation (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    will be a clincher for Hillary. If the race in June is so close that Florida would matter, no one will really be able to say what the will of the people was. And the fact that Obama blocked new votes adds to the perception that HE was obstructing that will.

    Let's see how well the Obama rules hold up after he gets blown out AGAIN in Pennsylvania.


    This argument won't work (4.00 / 1) (#57)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    Hillary said Michigan wouldn't matter, and her senior adviser voted to punish Florida and Michigan.

    I know Clinton people don't get this but people involved in the process (particularly the SD's) know the record.

    And it makes her argument look silly.


    What does Obama say? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST

    The narrative (4.00 / 1) (#55)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    for the SD's can only be changed by polling against McCain.  THAT is volatile, and the impression of a wounded Obama would sway enough SD's.

    I can see how Hillary can win the nomination. What I can't see is how she wins the general election.

    I don't by the popular vote theory - this has never been the standards in the past - it is pledged delegates that is the right measure.  And the SD's are aware of Clinton's past statements about Michigan and Ickes vote to punish Florida - so the blame Obama for Michigan and Florida argument won't hunt.


    Assumes... (none / 0) (#174)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    ...that the 'will of the people' is of the utmost relevancy in choosing a nominee.

    Here's a scenario.  Candidate easily racks up an insurmountable delegate and popular vote lead in the early primaries and then proceeds to crash and burn over the ensuing months due to unfolding events or changing sentiment.

    Let's keep in mind that the first primaries will have been held at least 6 months prior to the convention.

    Is the 'will of the people' such a paramount objective that we nominate a crippled candidate based on voting that didn't consider the current state of the campaign?


    The economy (none / 0) (#147)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    problems are not, right now, things that make for good campaigning.  Their is a really good article in the NYTimes about what is causing all this stuff to go down, and there was a rather witty piece last night on the PBS News Hour, with financial experts going into a residential house, and monopoly houses and dominoes, but it isn't like campaigning in an economy of high unemployment (yet).  And nobody can really bring down gas prices.  The government can't really give every American family a Prius, though it's not such a bad idea, in a way.

    She is trying to campaign on the economy, I believe, but it's not so easy to do, because of the complexity of the mortgage issues/investments/credit crunch.


    The PBS Paul Soloman piece was great (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    He always makes things understandable.

    Interesting that Bob Rubin was the focus of the other economic piece. Brought back memories of Bill Clinton's leadership on the economy.


    It is funny. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    Now they love Politico. I'm convinced if Lieberman changed his mind about McCain and embraced Obama, he would totally recover his reputation with some blogs.

    they both are tied (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    to post-partisanship you know...

    I've (none / 0) (#119)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    noticed that C & L is now running video from Fox News if they seem to support Obama!

    Also (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Grey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:48:34 AM EST
    I'd argue that a nice win in PA and a couple of other states will actually allow Clinton to catch up in the popular vote, and then we can have an argument about what "will of the voter" actually means.  At that point, Obama's argument will be that he has a few more elected delegates, but she will have won almost all of the big states, the states the Dems need to win in November and that both polling vs. McCain (as things stands now) and momentum are with her.  To that mix, let's also add Clinton's argument that Obama has not been properly vetted yet, which seems truer with each passing day and each new revelation about him, his pastor, his "typical white person" comments and tell me what his winning coalition is going to be in November.  You think the superdelegates aren't thinking about that? Because I think they are, and I think they see the same polling I've been reading for a month now that say that Obama is going to bleed Democrats against McCain at twice the rate Clinton will, if not more.  And I think that's going to put the superdelegates is a huge bind.

    I'm realistic enough to know that Clinton must catch up in the popular vote for all of that to activate or that, failing that, she needs a big (10 points at least) win in PA and maybe a surprise, like a close win or loss in NC and Indiana, but I think that is very possible, and these stories we get at regular intervals that question why she is still in the race need to die and stay dead.

    The Math alone won't make a winner out of Sen. Obama.  He's not won this and, in fact, he's had three chances to push Clinton out of the race.  Each time, she's kicked his butt, and each time the media changed the goalpost so she could not actually claim victory.

    The hubris and contempt I see coming out of the Obama campaign is really starting to tick me off.  There are 10 contests left, millions of voters who've yet to have their say; how about we wait for them?

    I agree with Grey (none / 0) (#237)
    by nycvoter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    I think that people may have turned off from Obama that were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on experience for his change arguement.  4 weeks is a long time, but if the Wright story and everything else is having the impact I think it is having, Clinton could start to have some substantial wins in expected places and some surprises in others that will make this picture look very different.  I do believe the Clinton campaign needs to get the narrative on FL and Mi to be not changing the rules midstream (there wasn't any agreement to block do overs) but that Obama doesn't want votes to count.

    The suggestions that HRC drops out (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    are driven by the reality that the size of the loss in Pennsylvania will expose the weakness of Obama to deliver in the important states.

    Obama's candidacy counts on the notion that Democrats will fully support Obama in the general election which is a theory that is somewhat suspect. By all accounts, he is certain to lose not only PA, but also WV and KY. That pretty much leaves NC, IN and OR.

    I have seen reports that NC is a near draw, IN is likely HRC and only OR is likely to be an Obama victory. Then of course there is PR.

    There isn't much victory on the horizon for Obama and thus the calls for HRC to pull out are calculations that the remaining votes will simply not inure to Obama's candidacy. He has no momentum to claim and the nomination ultimately goes to the floor of the convention. That is the only way this plays out now.

    And (none / 0) (#99)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    from what I have read, Puerto Rico is winner take all on the delegates.  That could be 69 for Hillary right there and 0 for Obama.

    Can anyone verify?


    Winner take all (none / 0) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    I always thought it was.  I had also heard it on teevee. I heard on blogger say it wasn't.  So I checked.....

    I read greenpapers.  It had selection process, but didn't specify allocation.  It DID have a link to a WaPo article.... it said could Puerto Rico decide everything... it is winner take all.


    Not according to its (none / 0) (#247)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    own written rules as well as the DNC rules.....

    Here is the website describing the Puerto Rico Primary to be held on June 1, 2008.  The Primary is to be "proportional" and "open."


    55 + 8 = 63 (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST
    I believe it is 63.  (Per greenpapers)

    Puerto Rico is not (none / 0) (#173)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    Unless the winner (none / 0) (#179)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    Wins with 86% of the vote.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#195)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    for that.  It made absolutely no sense to award delegates by district and then end with winner-take-all and the only writings I had said winner-take-all.

    Your objectivity is why I can always read you (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    and we aren't even "for" the same candidate.  I can handle the truth just fine and the truth never leaves me or seemingly anyone else feeling as if they've been bent over Gumby style or pulled through a knothole backwards.  My mind is not a one trick pony or a circus poodle just dying to jump through the same flaming hoop over and over again.  I think that is why the other bloggers are sitting in stunned silence staring at the blank screen right now.  They haven't really faced reality for quite some time, it is hard to deal with it all in one poll face planting day or even week.

    It's ironic that a primary calendar that (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    was designed to decide the nomination early has resulted in a primary calendar that cannot, as a matter of "math," decide the nomination.

    Obama wants to cut the process short not because his victory is inevitable, but because he doesn't have to run the risk of embarrassment in the late races. The fact that he is likely to lose a large and critical state like this late in the primary season ought to tell us something.

    I know that Clinton's path to the nomination is narrow.  I have concerns about the "tone" of both campaigns. But given the importance of this year's general election, given the narrow margin separating Clinton and Obama, I don't see why we should  disenfranchise Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Puerto Rico just because we've already disenfranchised MI and FLA.

    Ooops (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    My second paragraph should have read (additions bolded):

    Obama wants to cut the process short not because his victory is inevitable, but because he doesn't want to run the risk of embarrassment in the late races. The fact that he is likely to lose a large and critical state like Pennsylvania this late in the primary season ought to tell us something.

    that is the key (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    the people haven't rallied around the front runner, in fact, their poll numbers are dropping. Why on earth should HRC give up?

    At issue... (none / 0) (#180)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    ...with the 'will of the people' concept, is that voting is staged over some 6 months.  Again, imagine Obama's negatives climb to near 60% and national polling shows Clinton with 'momentum' (remember that word?)

    Indeed when Obama was behind the argument was - he has the 'momentum'.  When he's a head it's 'will of the people'


    I've been lurking for a month (can't stomach DKos) (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by DWCG on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    And I had to register to give you a 5 and just say thank you.

    The utter and total idiocy among the blogosphere and media is just infuriating.

    If Obama is such a strong candidate, if he is so clearly the Democratic nominee and thus the field should be cleared, why the heck is he losing these big contests so late in the game?!

    He came off a string of consecutive wins, and still couldn't close the deal in Ohio or Texas, all the while getting trounced in Rhode Island?!

    Clear nominees aren't supposed lose primaries in the final days of the primary season by big margins.  They're not supposed to be down 10-20 points down in MULTIPLE states including a big one.

    Seriously, have we ever had a nominee limp into the convention and claim inevitability?

    He's likely to lose a large state/huge swing state in APRIL! and he/his supporters have the "audacity" to claim the very candidate who is winning in these big races should drop out because she won't win the plurality of pledged delegates?

    Obama '08 has nothing to help them except CW as established by those bastards in the media, pushing this ridiculous threshold "plurality of pledged delegates," and claiming it reflects the will of the people (as opposed to the actual popular vote) all the while numerous reports and election results clearly show that the delegate counts are a poor reflection of the will of the people:

    -Texas Results.
    -Nevada Results.
    -Missouri Results.
    -New Hampshire Results.
    -Iowa Conventions.
    -Colorado Conventions.

    I've never seen such an illogical and frankly asinine argument put forth by a serious Democratic presidential nominee, but more importantly, one that is so easily swallowed by people who claim they're proud members of the "reality-based community."

    What we have is a tie - plain and simple.  Neither candidate should drop out.  If it goes down to the floor well that's the way THE PEOPLE LEFT IT TO BE!!!!!

    I'm so bloody sick of people, who claim to be Democrats/claim to be progressive showing contempt for the voters and elections.

    Re: Michigan and Florida, I'm on the fence as the the actual solution.  But the following options should not be considered:
    -NOT counting their delegates
    -NOT counting their votes
    -Dividing the delegates in a manner any different than how the people voted
    -Anything else that pretends that the elections did not occur

    I don't see how any Democrat or democracy loving person could come to any other conclusion.


    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by DWCG on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    The second to last line should read:

    "Anything else that pretends that the states of Michigan and Florida don't exist or their people should not be heard."


    Pot Meets Kettle? (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    The utter and total idiocy among the blogosphere and media is just infuriating.

    Then why add more idiocy?

    Seriously, have we ever had a nominee limp into the convention and claim inevitability?

    Bill Clinton?

    I'm so bloody sick of people, who claim to be Democrats/claim to be progressive showing contempt for the voters and elections.

    You mean Obama supporters?

    You have become what you hate.


    Oh And BTW (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    You will fit in quite well here, for a while anyway.

    Anything to contribute... (none / 0) (#205)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    ...aside from snarky personal attacks?

    Personal Attacks? (1.00 / 1) (#221)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    Hardly. The comment is silly I am not sure about the commenter. The new poster is sick of what some in the Democratic party are doing aka acting like GOP attack dogs.

    Seems to me that attacking Obama supporters and Obama is exactly what DWGC is complaining about. Par for the course here. You would think that the kool aid is laced with sterno given all the blindness I am seeing here.


    Calling Truth is Not Kettle Color (none / 0) (#211)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    DWGC has not become what he or she hates.

    DWGC's post outlined a compelling argument for why the HRC campaign should be not be bullied into leaving. Most damningly he or she didn't have to rely on morality to make that argument. Instead the post persuasively laid out facts regarding numbers and momentum. You know the things that actually matter going into the general election.


    hahahahah (1.00 / 1) (#225)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    Your truth is in sync with the GOP truth. Wonder what that says about you.

    Also the odd thing about KOS (none / 0) (#244)
    by abfabdem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    is that the majority of his readers actually preferred Edwards so are coming to Obama as a last resort.  So I don't get the righteous indignation at everything Clinton when it doesn't support their guy as Obama was not their guy to being with.  They had to settle for him but suddenly he's perfect.

    Beyond the other points you're (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by frankly0 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    making, it is really important to acknowledge the more basic defect in the Politico analysis: they clearly exclude the previous results in FL and MI.

    Even including only the results in FL, where Hillary won by app 300,000 votes, dramatically improves her prospects of overtaking Obama in the popular vote. In a post-Wright campaign, her odds may be quite good, if the consequences continue to be felt in all future primaries, which I'd expect would be true.

    Absent the FL and MI results, Hillary is down by probably 800,000 votes. With Fl included, she's down by 500,000. If you were to include her MI margin (perhaps prorating the uncommitted on the basis of exit polls), she'd be down probably less than 400,000.

    Hillary won in OH by 10%, achieving a 208,000 margin. PA is about 10% larger than OH, so if she won by 15%, that would be a margin of about 345,000, and if she won by 20%, the margin would be about 460,000. Obviously that would reduce or even erase Obama's overall margin of 400,000 or 500,000 (depending on whether you count MI at all). In any case, relatively modest wins in the remaining states on balance could well add up to any remaining difference and then some.

    count the votes, count the votes, count the votes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    should be the Clinton (and really everyones) mantra. Let us go through the process and count the votes. After the votes, then the SD's can get together or not, and then cast their votes. Then we'll have a winner. No problem.

    I do think it's reasonable for SD's to consider the popular vote plus a reasonable guess at MI and FL (their current vote or current polling for example) to get a feel for where the party stands. And of course the SD's can take into consideration the GE roadmap. Of course the Obama side doesn't want the SD's to follow the will of the people in the locales (see for example Richardson, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.). And that's fine. For them to suggest that other than their SD's, other SD's should do that is, well, typical politics. Hopefully someone will noticed the blatant politics of that.

    So if anyone hears that Hillary should step down, or that all these guesses based on guesses add up to something for certain, they should see that for what it is, spin. Simple political spin. And if someone is doing it that pretends to be the press, then we and everyone should instead consider them political operatives.

    Count the votes, count the votes, count the votes...

    The problem is that it doesn't look like (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    Obama can win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, or West Virginia. Indiana should have easily been his, given how close it is to IL, but I think the Rev. Wright debacle has more than evened the odds there. Heck, he'll have to work to win NC.

    How is is that the inevitable nominee could have this much trouble?

    As always when you offer your (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    analysis it is pretty superb.  You save me reading when you do this for me so thanks.  On spring break?  Still in school?

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    Spring Break winding down.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    am a lifelong resident of Illinois.  Believe me, Indiana is whole different can of worms.  First of all, it's a blood RED state.  I didn't know they had any Democrats over there. (little joke)  There's no sort of "sister state" thing going on between Illinois and Indiana.  The settlement pattern was similar with the southern end settling first.  Those border areas tend to still have a more southern, conservative society, but in Indiana it doesn't stop there.  

    I really think the same is true of Illinois and Wisconsin, although pols keep saying that WI's proximity to IL influenced the vote in WI.  The only similarity I can see is that Chicago is hugely BLUE and Madison is waaaaay Blue and they sit nearly across the border from each other.

    I think if anything, this election has shown how distinctive each state is.  One cannot look at the Midwest anymore and assume anything collectively about these states.


    As one who teaches and researches (none / 0) (#248)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    about the Midwest, I can tell you that truer words never were spoken.  Very different from Great Lakes states to Great Plains states (for historical reasons, of course, with the landmark Northwest Ordinance vs. the Louisiana Purchase) and even within each group.  Perhaps even more different north to south, as you note, with the massive southern influx -- and yes, much of Indiana still is very southern; home of the modern KKK, after all.

    The idiocies and fallacies and mythologies perpetuated by coastal media about the Midwest -- a fourth of our nation's population -- are a neverending source of jollity for us, anyway.

    (But about Wisconsin, no, Madison is quite west of Chicago.  You're talking about the bigger blue belt due north of Chicago -- Kenosha, Racine, and especially Milwaukee, waaaay bigger than Madison.)


    I'm not sure I've ever bought (none / 0) (#89)
    by spit on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    the "neighboring state" thing. Indiana and Illinois couldn't be much more politically different just looking at their presidential election histories, and I know from personal experience that, say, each of those tiny little states people tend to lump as "New England" has a totally different political situation. Dunno.

    Maybe it's also my perception because CA is so very large -- nobody here cares who might be connected to OR or NV, heck, we're doing well if Northern Californians vote for Southern Californians.

    That said, I haven't seen polling from IN, but the conventional wisdom has always put it in Obama's column, and I also suspect that Wright might've damaged him quite a bit there. We'll see. I don't have a solid enough sense of the place to venture much of a guess.


    Indiana is "southern". (none / 0) (#107)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    Ohio flanks Indiana on the other side, and for the longest time I thought of IN, IL and OH as three peas in a pod, but it really isn't true.  IL and OH have small towns, but Indiana IS a small town.  When I think of Indiana, I don't think of Cleveland or Columbus, I think of Cincinnati.

    I"m so tired... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by smott on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    ...of the Drop Out HRC meme I'm honestly beginning to hope Edwards comes out and endorses Hillary right before the NC primary, just to screw the pooch for BO.  And I like BO!

    Blog after blog is losing touch with reality...even the commenters at Drum, complaining that if the tables were reversed HRC would be calling on BO to withdraw. Yes, I'm sure if she'd just had her ass handed to her in every swing state she'd be insisting her opponent quit immediately.

    imho, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by english teacher on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    if clinton pulls ahead in the popular vote without michigan and florida, you p*ss on the fire and call the dogs, 'cause it's all over.  

    Obama supporters, and I include much... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Alvord on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    ...  of the media in the category of Obama supporters, know that their candidate faces loss after loss from now until the convention. How will a string of losses look going into Denver. The pledged delegate math, especially since a lot of those delegates were derived from caucuses rather than primaries, won't look so impressive if Obama hasn't closed the deal with late voters.

    our nominee (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    We really want to be behind our dem nominee. Speaking for me as a former Edwards supporter and current HIllary supporter, I will be happy with any dem nominee. I've liked most all of the candidates. I can be an ardent Obama supporter. I just need to see a reasonably fair and democratic primary. And if the will of the party is for Obama, I will be quite happy to support him. And obviously the same goes for Hillary if she wins.

    If this looks unfair. If MI and FL are not reasonably considered. If it doesn't look fair. Then we will not have a dem party nominee. He won't be our nominee.

    I will proudly support either Dem (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by smott on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    ...in the GE.
    I'm in PA and I"m voting for HRC here.

    I think BO is fatally wounded now. And the GOP attack machine hasn't even gotten in to gear yet.


    you're sounding like... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    a typical white person

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by smott on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    Typical white BO supporter I think...worried that he can now not win the GE...

    I read Instapundit (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    is printing "typical white person" t-shirts. That was A BHO Ferraro moment.

    the problem of course (none / 0) (#70)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    is that Obama said it...if HRC had said 'typical white person' or the reverse, 'typical black person', it would have been labeled as racist.

    Is Obama a racist by saying the phrase?
    of course...

    Will Obama have given cover to people who buy and wear these T-shirts?
    of course...

    Has Obama completely marginalized himself and attacks on him because of his own comments?


    Stereotyping (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    I think it was stereotyping not racist.  It shows a division in experience and came through as a thought, but I didn't think it was racist.  It bothered me because I am annoyed with being referred to as low knowledge, uneducated, etc.

    I didn't take Obama's (none / 0) (#164)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    TWP comment as racist, but then i didn't take Ferraro's comments as racist either. Unfortunate sound bites, tho.

    No (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    It depends on what the context is. If she said that the typical Black AMericans votes democrat and those are the votes that have held up the democratic party through thick and thin, those are votes that matter to me, it would hardly be a negative comment.

    faux pas, n'est pas. (none / 0) (#143)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    I believe the faux pas for HRC would have been 'like a typical man'.

    I am hearing that phrase (none / 0) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    quite a bit.  People are referring to themselves as typical white person.  I'll admit it, I want one.

    I want one also (none / 0) (#146)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    I think I need to make one for my Dalmatian that says "typical spotted dog" so we can wear matching t-shirts at the dog park  ;)

    OMG (none / 0) (#133)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    I have to have one.

    Reasonable and fair. I agree. (4.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    Just because the delegates won't be seated, we'll all know the real vote totals and if HC passes him in the popular vote (giving him all uncommitted in MI) it won't seem fair to me.

    I think the SD's have to think about that but I'm not kidding myself...when it comes down to it, they will not give the nomination to Hillary if Obama leads in delegates, period.

    I'm starting to believe BTD and others who say a joint ticket is our only chance. I just don't want to see HC as the VP candidate.


    HRC has little to gain as VP I think... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by smott on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    If I were her I think I'd rather go for Senate Maj Leader.

    ANother reason I wish BO had waited a few years. He cuold have come in on the tail end of a nice 8-yr Dem Admin, and gotten us another 8 years.

    Oh well!


    Totally agree. (none / 0) (#134)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    Obama as VP (none / 0) (#156)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    the VP candidate that makes perfect sense is Obama. It would be a perfect setup for 8 years of HRC followed by 8 years of Obama. He is not going to overcome his immaturity on the national stage this year...but after 8 years as VP, he becomes a natural and easy choice. This year is forced and has a high probability of failure that we can not afford. In 8 years he's a slam dunk.

    Obama and his rabid adulates should realize this and take one for the team this year.

    The reverse, HRC as VP really doesn't carry much logic other than to try to assuage HRC fans, which is not insignificant, but not nearly as beneficial as Obama as VP.


    why VP when she can be Pres in '12 (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    I think the odds of Obama winning the GE are slim. Assuming by conventional wisdom that Obama will be be the nominee because of delegate count (vs. pop vote which Hillary will have by conventional wisdom) if you count MI and FL). So even if Hillary would be offered the VP slot, I don't think it would be very smart to take it. She would be in the Edwards position of being part of a loosing ticket in '08. If she doesn't take it and continues in the Senate, possibly as speaker, then she's in a good position in '12.

    Just think of the party fall out after Obama looses in '08. Some will of course blame Hillary for not dropping out. Others will notice she actually had the popular vote (incl. MI and FL) and that perhaps we had the wrong nominee. And those people will blame the DNC and Obama.

    You know, this could actually be a good scenario for Hillary.  I have a strong opinion that who ever the next president will be with the Iraq mess and the economy, it's looking like a horrible one term presidency, no matter who it is. Good being a relative term of course. We'd have to hope McCain doesn't bring an end to the world, which he surely could. And we'd have to hold our breath on the SCOTUS like we have for 8 years.


    Yes we would have to hope... (none / 0) (#96)
    by smott on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    that Ruth Bader and John Paul can hang in another 4 years....

    the giants beat the patriots (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by english teacher on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    didn't they? so i say anything is possible.

    Ha. Brady is the media favorite, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    Eli is Hillary with the media snickering at him half the time. I guess that leaves Peyton as Bill, the former winner who people either love or hate.

    Let me start off by saying (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    that I am not advocating for Hillary to drop out.  IMO, calls for her to drop out now are fueled primarily by a sense that the race has gone on too long already and that it will hurt the Democrats the longer it continues.

    It is March.  Races are often not decided until April or May.  There are still 7 months to go before the GE.  If the race ends in the middle of May, which it probably will one way or the other, there will still be 6 months left.  By August this primary fight will be a distant memory, unless something really crazy happens.

    The blogosphere operates on the immediate.  It rarely understands that time influences events.  In 2 weeks we will be talking about some new "scandal" impacting one of the 3 politicians.  It will happen because the media will create something either out of known information or from something minor.  The media must always generate news items.  It doesn't much care about the impact as long as it can generate readers/viewers.

    Hillary has a very big hill to climb.  The Wright story gave her a big boost but it will be hard to keep that momentum solely on Wright.  And we don't know what the next news cycle will bring us.  While many Hillary partisans think the Wright story will carry the day for her it isn't very likely.  Scandal by proxy doesn't have legs.

    There is no reason for Hillary to drop out now.  She has the cash to continue on as does Obama.  Their primary money can't go to the General race.  So the race should go on.

    We will know who the nominee is on May 15th.  That is a week after Indiana and North Carolina.  If Hillary has made a clean sweep of PA, NC, and IN with decisive wins it will be clear that she has the momentum and that the Wright story won't go away.  If she doesn't then she simply won't be be able to overcome the gap she is facing right now.  

    The SuperDelegates aren't going to swoop in and save Hillary.  It simply isn't going to happen.  Of the 720 SuperDelegates, 464 have already pledged to one candidate or another.  That means that there are only 256 remaining unpledged delegates.   She would need to get 80% of them to swing the delegate count as it stands.  If that happens, it would mean that Conventional Wisdom was overwhelming for Hillary.

    Lastly, the notion of disenfranchisement is getting a lot of play but it is an ahistorical observation.  Primaries are inherently unequal.  Historically MOST states votes don't matter.   In most primaries only about 25% of the states matter.  So there is no reason that we need to wait for every state to vote as we never have in the past, except when we had to go to the convention.  And going to the convention without a presumptive nominee has generally equated to a defeat in the GE.  

    Mostly, I agree (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by spit on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    on your last point, while it's technically true -- just as it's technically true that there is no constitutional right to vote in a party primary, say -- it's not the technical truth that always matters most in this stuff. Yes, most of us out here in states that are late in the cycle have been virtual rubber stamps for Iowa and New Hampshire, that's a historical fact. But it's one that really angers a whole lot of voters, and should be fixed in some way -- that's the whole reason we have a scheduling-leapfrogging-FL/MI-problem. States (and voters within them) are genuinely PO'ed about that status quo.

    I think it's terrific that everybody is getting to participate in this primary, and while it's certainly not necessary looking at historical examples -- heck, a few party leaders could pull a nominee's name out of a hat, technically -- it is also true that voters very much care about whether they're being represented and heard by the process. Vastly improved Democratic turnout this year is IMO partially driven by the Getting-Rid-Of-Bush phenomenon, but it's also being driven by people actually feeling that their votes count for something for a change. There's nothing more important for the party, IMO, than having people in every state have a sense of excitement about it.


    I agree with what you say (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    I've always felt that the nomination process was screwy.  I live in NJ and up until this year our primary was in June.  So our vote never mattered.  It sure didn't in 2004 when New Hampshire ensured that my dislike of John Kerry as a Presidential nominee made not a whit of difference.

    The way the primary process works should be overhauled.  But, at the same time, people talking about how undemocratic the process is are simply tilting at windmills and forgetting past results.  


    Overhauled (none / 0) (#88)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    The process seems to get overhauled frequently.  The Repubs don't go for as much overhauling and the results seem to get accepted.

    Clever that you included NC (none / 0) (#71)
    by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    Obama is favored to win in NC because AAs form a significant part of the Democratic primary voters.

    PA, WV, KY, and IN form level playing fields and 3 out of those 4 states are swing states in the GE.

    If Obama cannot beat Hillary in PA, WV, and KY then he is a wek candidate for the GE. He would have then won only one big state, Illinois which is his home state.

    He would have then lost CA, NY, NJ, OH, TX, PA, MA, MI, and FL.

    His delegate lead comes from outsized wins in thinly attended red-state caucuses.

    Is this the nominee you want going against McCain in the fall?


    Clever? (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    Actually I made a slight mistake in that by May 15th we will also have the result of West Virginia.

    The date I provided was not a date that I think that either candidate MUST concede.  It is the date we will know who the nominee.  If Hillary does not make significant inroads by that date she simply won't be able to come back.  There will only be 180 delegates remaining.  Of that 180 Obama would be the strong favorite in states that represent half the count(OR, MT, and SD)

    She must gain at least 50 net delegates from PA, IN, WV, and NC.  If she doesn't, it's over.  The math decides it.  Just because Mark Penn and Harold Ickes wish to portray it otherwise doesn't make it so.  

    I have laid out my reasons for supporting Obama many times and they haven't changed.  I don't believe that Hillary is a stronger candidate in November.  However I do think that either Dem will win in November provided they don't create a circular firing squad.

    BTW, your comment that Obama is winning solely because thinly populated Red States is pretty amusing.  How exactly did he get an 800,000 popular vote lead based on thinly populated Red States?  


    The more basic truth is (none / 0) (#120)
    by frankly0 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    that Obama's delegate lead is, according to an analysis offered up by Joe Trippi (which I haven't personally checked, but I'd expect to be true), entirely based on leads acquired in caucuses, as opposed to elections. Take away those caucuses, and he is, according to Trippi, losing in the pledged delegate count.

    And yet we all know how distorting caucuses are of real democracy. And certainly if you take any popular vote totals based on caucuses away from Obama, his popular vote total is greatly reduced, and Hillary would very, very likely win the popular vote in the final total (the basic fact of the timing of the primaries being that Obama had a large period in the middle that very disproportionately favored him in states that had primaries or caucuses in that period).

    Basically, take away the caucuses, and the very likely outcome would be that Hillary would be the decisive winner both in pledged delegates and in popular vote.

    One question Democrats need to ask is whether they might ever want the process to be distorted by caucuses like this ever again. And it will especially be true if Obama wins in virtue of them, and then loses in something approaching a landslide, having won on the enthusiasm of activists who chose to be blind to glaring faults in his vetting and experience.


    The liberal blogosphere was against caucuses (none / 0) (#214)
    by DWCG on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    ...before they were for them.

    Hopefully this year's contest will lead to their banishment.


    The problem with Supers. (none / 0) (#103)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:40 AM EST

    Of the 720 SuperDelegates, 464 have already pledged to one candidate or another.

    Yes, but they can still change their minds any time up until the convention.  In some instances, supers aren't even allowed to endorse before they vote (state laws).  Heck, they're not even obligated to endorse NOW.  People just don't realize that the SDs aren't existent for influence or endorsement, they're existent for independence from the common voter/vote.


    Sure (none / 0) (#111)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    But it is unlikely that Supers will switch in significant enough numbers to matter UNLESS the conventional wisdom says that one candidate or the other is the winner.

    Which states don't allow SDs to endorse a candidate?  That seems like a strange rule and one almost impossible to enforce.


    Behind the calls for HRC to drop out (none / 0) (#160)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    calls for HRC to drop out are fulled by the fact that the outlook for Obama here on out is all downward. There is no upside on the horizon for Obama and his adulates damn well know it.

    Obama had February and that's it... and February does not a November victory make.


    I agree that Obama is the likely nominee (none / 0) (#178)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    Your analysis seems accurate.  I don't understand then why the Obama camp is continuing the negative attack on HC.  Wouldn't it be better for party unity to focus on McCain and let the clock run out?

    Question for you, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    Why are these articles appearing now at the end of a terrible week for Obama? A week that, in my view, effectively killed his chances in the general election.

    Everything these columns are saying were true the day after Mississippi. Yet, it is strange that they appear now.

    I think there is a sense in the Obama-loving pundit class that the longer this goes on Obama's chances of being the nominee becomes less and less. There are no one-sided caucus state wins to change the narrative. The next two states are Hillary friendly: Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

    The friendliest state for him is North Carloina which isn't until the end of May.

    The focus will be squarely on Obama, his mentors, and his advisors until the PA primary. He is having a hard time changing the subject from Wright.

    This is probably why they want Hillary to drop out. She won't because her national numbers are improving and her state numbers in PA, WV, and KY are strong. AS long as the issue MI and FL is unsettled there is no need for her to leave.

    Obama was offered a fair chance to beat her in FL and MI and he refused. He will regret this in June.


    And in fact as the caucuses enter the next phase (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    It will be interesting to see if he can hold his delegates.

    I know what you are hoping for, but if Iowa (none / 0) (#110)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    is any indication, his lead will increase.
    All the noise from the Clinton campaign about how caucuses are inferior could be seen as attempts to disenfranchise those voters by marginalizing them. We will see

    Well then THAT's an indicator too (none / 0) (#128)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:55 AM EST
    If he can expand his delegate lead through the next step of caucuses, then that will be a sign that regular democrats (Hillary & Edwards delegates) aren't too worried about The Wright Issue.

    But if he starts losing delegates, that would be a sign that we're having a Delegate Stampede.

    It's not so much that I'm hoping for it.  I've been on the wrong end of a Stampede (The Dean Scream) and it's not fun.  But Stampedes are indicators of a troubled campaign.

    And primaries aren't going to be the only official indicators in the next 2 months.

    The first step of the caucuses are over.  But, the next steps count too.


    When did May 6th (3.00 / 2) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    become the end of May?  

    A lot of people are tired of the primary and want to move on to the GE.  Thus they are pushing to end it now.  

    FTR, it would seem that Bill Clinton is trying to help the Obama campaign by saying dumb things again.  


    What dumb things? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:41:40 AM EST
    Check Daily Kos (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    I'm sure that diary will be on the Rec List for most of today.

    IMO, it is another one of those stupid cherry picked comments that people make out to be yet more proof that Hillary is Teh Evil.  I think they are jumping on it because they have run short of good material this week.


    DailyKos is an IMPARTIAL observer right? (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    Ha. Maybe once, not now. (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    Go there and write a diary about being an undecided Dem and ask for advice.

    You'll see how "impartial" that community is.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:50:24 AM EST
    it is indicative of anything.  It is simply a dumb thing to say.  Bill isn't some neophyte who doesn't understand how the game is played.  

    It is precisely the sort of comment that the media salivates over.


    Bill Clinton said nothing controversial (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    This is a totally cooked up outrage by Obama and his supporters to change the subject from Wright.

    They have been on the defensive for two weeks now and are increasingly desperate to change the subject.

    First Obama produced a picture of Bill Clinton with Wright at a WH meet and greet and got laughed at by the media.

    Now they are taking a remark that doesn't even mention Obama and has nothing to do with him and are trying to gin up a controversy.

    Here is a take from a conservative NRO reporter who was actually at the event:

    In Bill's Defense    [Kathleen Parker]

    It isn't often that I'm called to defend Bill Clinton, but since I was present in Charlotte, N.C., Friday when he made the remarks -- now being spun by the Obama campaign as "like McCarthy" -- I'm compelled to set the record straight.

    The AP is reporting that Hillary Clinton is trying to clarify comments by her husband that "seemed to question" Barack Obama's patriotism and that an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy. Nonsense.

    In no way did I interpret Clinton's remarks as questioning Obama's patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife's electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination. He may have intentionally bypassed Obama in his leap to match Hillary against McCain, but he didn't say anything that could be construed as questioning Obama's patriotism. The sequence went as follows: He noted that Hillary polls ahead of McCain in Ohio and Florida and also that McCain leads "Hillary's opponent" (I quit typing here and don't recall exactly which states he mentioned in that part of his comment.) His point, obviously, was that Hillary should be the nominee and, in that case, she and McCain would face each other in the final contest.

    Before he made the so-called controversial remarks, he praised McCain as an "honorable man," who has "paid the highest price short of giving your life." He mentioned that though Hillary and McCain disagree on many issues, they've worked together successfully on others. In that context, he said it would be great "if you had two people who really love this country and ask who's right on these issues" instead of all the non-essential clutter that now distracts in politics.

    This was toward the end of his talk, which focused on Iraq and the economy. Obama was no longer on the radar at this point. Bill Clinton was saying that Hillary and McCain are both good patriots who love their country, not that all those unmentioned are something else. At least that's the way I heard it. Now, if I were the sort of reporter who looks for some random sentence to blow up into an attention-grabbing headline . . .

    03/22 12:03 PM


    Obama and his supporters will do anything and say anything to get elected.


    Like "typical white person"? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    don't see a diary on Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#118)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:18 AM EST
    But Obama Camp went wayyyyy out into outer space by claiming Bill called Obama "unpatriotic" and a "traitor", red meat to the Dem base voting for Hillary. So apparently Obama doesn't want Hillary to withdraw.
    Obama and his camp have falsely accused the Clintons of being racists - and now they've pulled the Communist Card!
    The Obama Camp continues overanalyzing and "misinterpreting" every Clinton comment in order to incite Obama followers.

    That's exactly the diary. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    And the rhetoric.

    Bill says essentially "Gee, I wish we could talk about the issues instead of all this gossip." and this turns into slighting Obama's A More Perfect Singularity speech.  

    So it's wrong to bring up race as an issue unless you are Obama.  It's wrong to want to talk about other issues if you aren't Obama.   WTF?


    eh, I just went to look for it but . . . (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    couldn't get past Obama's final four picks show good judgment and women must stop Hillary diaries. {sigh}

    McPeak was just at the Obama rally talking about (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    it. Or should I say working it?

    General election prospects (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    some thoughts to ponder...

    Rasmussen Ohio
    44%     McCain
    50%     Clinton
    6%     Undecided

    50%     McCain
    43%     Obama
    7%     Undecided

    Rasmussen Missouri
    48%     McCain
    46%     Clinton
    6%     Undecided

    53%     McCain
    39%     Obama
    9%     Undecided

    Heck...even Minnesota
    46%     McCain
    49%     Clinton
    5%     Undecided

    47%     McCain
    46%     Obama
    7%     Undecided

    Electability is indeed a major concern

    dummy me (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    attributed the above polls to Rasmussen but clicking the links makes it obvious that they are SurveyUSA.

    SUSA record (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST
    I've thought SUSA has done pretty decent.  I know RCP doesn't use them.  Do you have any record on how successful they have done overall?

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    about the GE polls right now.  They are meaningless.  The Dems are split still.  The GOP isn't.  McCain is able to take free shots at the Dems while the Dems are busy fighting each other.

    When the Dem nominee is selected, the numbers will matter more.


    trends matter (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:27:15 AM EST
    In Ohio SUSA polling, Obama has gone from 50-40 pre-Wright to 43-50.

    You can't dismiss these polls as meaningless just because we're far off from the GE. They're a fairly accurate measure of how people are feeling at this moment. We'll see if he recovers, as he's looking to in the Gallup daily tracking, but this is just plain bad for our likely nominee.

    It indicates that Wright is an effective line of attack against Obama. And no, don't tell me that it's going to be tired by November. How long did we hear flip-flopping and Swift Boat accusations about Kerry?


    it gets worse... (none / 0) (#176)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    Survey USA 3/20 Massachusetts

    Obama puts MA into play...

    42%     McCain
    55%     Clinton
    3%     Undecided

    47%     McCain
    47%     Obama
    6%     Undecided

    It could be suggested that Obama in the GE will be slaughtered


    I already voted (none / 0) (#116)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    so my time to take these GE polls into account has already passed but I have no doubt that they factored into my vote for HRC (I actually preferred Edwards).

    The so called 'super' delegates undoubtedly will also have an eye on the these factors, as they should.

    Dismissing them as you suggest is simply not possible and could lead us to another November defeat.


    It seems the DNC and Dem Party leaders (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    are reluctant to say FU to the loyal Dem base voting for Hillary - and embrace Obama's "Dems for a day." Obama and his followers are discounting, and certainly not courting, Dems needed to win the general.
    Reagan Dems voting for Hillary will not vote for empty suit Obama. Call it racism if you want, but they see him as an empty suit, do not want him answering the WH phone at 3 a.m. and will vote for McCain rather than Obama.
    Contrary to "popular belief", everyone voting for Hillary is not a racist, but more interested in experience and substance. And the more the Clintons are falsely accused of racism - and Obama Camp finding "racism" in every Clinton comment - only buoys her candidacy.

    I am not going to vote (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    for someone I do not wish to be President and I don't expect anyone else to.

    There is nothing currently or on the horizon that makes me believe that I will vote for Barack. Even if Hillary should win and he accepts a supporting role (he won't).

    Having watched the events unfold I will not forget how he has played the game. I will not sweep his affiliations under the rug simply to support a party that in my estimation has done little to support me.

    I will give them a chance the next time around but having seen the dirty party politics and favoritism I will vote for her or I will vote "Present".

    I will then spend the next four years writing to Party Leaders asking them to fix what they have created.

    Not only do I admire her politics but I despise what "they" have done to her.  This includes the media, the party, the Obama Camp.  That is not representative of me or my politics so why encourage it? Voting for a candidate that has risen through this is cosigning their behavior and supporting someone I don't respect.

    I will vote for something, not against it. The obvious support of one over the other makes me want to skip the dance altogether. My votes in other elections will reflect how candidates have participated in this process and who they support during this race.

    People say that I am just wasting my vote and my only response is that voting for someone I don't respect is throwing my vote away.  Saving it for the right person is voting my conscience. I cannot ever vote for him. Currently at least. He is surrounded by people I despise and is supported by people I do not wish to affiliate with. Party, schmarty.

    Their fine work has created all this hateful rhetoric. Their lack of leadership goes against why I am a Democrat to begin with. I cannot let them succeed in disenfranchisement for their own political gain.

    All I can do is value my own vote and defend my right to do so. Like GWB, I will once again live in a country without a President. Just as I don't see Bush as my President (because he does not represent anything I stand for) I will not support a President with any other last name than Clinton. I will let everybody else sell out or settle. Or if they truly value Barack I will support them in their support of him.  But Barack Obama will never be my President.  Even if elected.

    Don't ever (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    let someone demean your argument by calling it petulance.

    For instance, is it petulance to want the Democrats to be for Democracy? one voter, one vote?  Can we really reward the DNC with our votes based on a 48-state strategy?

    A Supreme Court pick isn't the end of the world.  That pendulum swings, and that threat get more muted everytime it's played.

    I'm interested in the long-term, not political plays that get a weak candidate nominated, just so they can lose -- or so they can win and make Democrats look bad.  Dean won't be fired if Obama wins.  And Pelosi and Reid will likely keep their jobs too.  Those three folks will sink the Democrats, just as they're in the process of doing now.

    If the Supreme Court problem is bad with McCain in office, just think how bad it'll be if the Democratic party is completely destroyed.


    We need to get rid of Dean so badly. He's (none / 0) (#153)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    done a terrible job. Pelosi and Reid are failures as well, but he's the one really doing the party in.

    Here's how it's going to go. Obama will win the nomination, lose the general election worse then Kerry did and President McCain will slap the congress around more then Bush ever did. If the DNC is headed up by Dean or anyone who shares the same philosophy (don't raise that much money, fight for votes in Montana but forget about Michigan and Florida, etc.) and management style, our gooses will stay cooked.

    Our party is a self defeating mess. Something needs to change.


    I recommend (4.00 / 2) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    you read up on Janice Rogers Brown and think what it would be like to see her on the Supreme Court.

    Some of you guys are so petulant about this.

    Vote for whomever you wish to or don't vote at all.  But don't complain about the country in a year if McCain is President.  When he finds some BS pretense to attack Iran and we dig deeper into that region, you don't get to complain about it.  You don't get to complain about it because you decided to stomp your feet.


    LOL (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:19 AM EST

    When he finds some BS pretense to attack Iran and we dig deeper into that region, you don't get to complain about it.

    You make it sound like Obama's never made any threats towards the region.


    Israel/Palestinian (none / 0) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    position of Obama is not well thought of in some circles either.

    SCOTUS blackmail won't work (none / 0) (#184)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    either. From the sexism I've heard from Obama, I'm not sure he would put in pro choice justices. And that's a pretty sad thing to have to say.

    He was advised not (none / 0) (#203)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    to support Roberts wasn't it?  And he voted for the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith I believe.

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#226)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    Obama has been  namby-pamby on democratic issues from the start. I have been thoroughly disgusted with his obsequious behavior to the abominable Reagan legacy. His comments to the NV press still burn in my ears. BC pales in comparison.

    . Obama supporters may disagree vehemently, but the truth is BHO gave legitimacy to the most destructive path the world has ever taken. Reagan killed alternative energy research, tried to make (and virtually succeeded) environmentalism a dirty word, busted unions,  supported illegal covert terroristic wars in Central America, turned the mentally ill out on the streets, worshiped Wallstreet, not Main Street, and the list goes on and on.

    There is nothing about the Reagan legacy that should bear a single word of praise (or words that can easily be interpreted as such), as the damage done is too depraved.

    IMHO, of course.


    We live the (none / 0) (#230)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    effect of Reagan's position on the mentally ill every day.  When I heard the Obama comments on Reagan, that was the first issue that popped in to my head.

    Don't forget, though, McCain (none / 0) (#236)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    is absolutely unwavering in his right to life stance.

    Talk Left Proves Honesty In Politics Possible (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    the dishonesty of kos, TPM, Open Left, Olbermann, and others is what inspires anger and division. They want Obama fine, be an advocate. But the constant dishonesty and extreme exaggerated bias and hypocrisy, so very reminiscent of the wingnut media and blogosphere is what has been so infuriating and revealing.

    You can't pretend to be a media entity or source of information and be a dissembler at the same time - its what's so wrong with the MSM and the wingnuts, and now includes many former mainstays of the left.

    Here, Jeralyn advocates for Clinton, but writes responsibly, and BTD trends Obama but is very fair and honest in presenting information and providing assessment. They've proven its doable to be honest in reporting and opining politics. But such is apparently not possible for dkosites, TPM, Olbermann, and other hypocrites of the left.  

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    So all the blogs that are in favor of Obama are dishonest and the blogs in favor of Hillary are honest?  

    Don't tell me, let me guess.  Taylor Marsh is also a beacon of honesty in a sea of deception?


    honesty (none / 0) (#142)
    by tree on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    This is what I would call a self-negating post. It seems to be a criticism of dishonesty and hypocrisy of other posts here, but it's bereft of any underlying honesty of its own.

    No one said that "all the blogs that are in favor of Obama are dishonest". No one even implied it. It is only by exaggerating and misstating what was said, in other words by dishonesty, that such a specious     charge could be made.

    (Mote, beam.)


    tell you what, tm is a lot fairer (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    to obama than the "left" blogs are to hillary. go take a read! she is partisan for hillary, but heck with the ongoing haters, there needs to be someone in her camp.

    Bah (none / 0) (#165)
    by spit on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    The strawman is feeling really worn down by this primary season. Give him a rest.

    dishonesty in action (none / 0) (#175)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    flyerhawk, you demonstrate the point - thanks.

    TPM (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    Saw a headline at TPM last night about how Hillary backers have thrown in the towel.  So I emailed Josh out of anger that Hillary supporters don't go to his site anymore  and this was his response:  
    That seems improbable since we got just as many emails from Hillary  supporters a month ago as a week ago as a day ago.  If you're right they all bailed in the last 24 hrs.

    Can someone translate what he is saying?  Hillary supporters have bailed, they still email, but are not reading him.  

    I guess he does not get it that people may email him out of anger, but don't read him.  We read level headed analysts, even who do not support our candidate.  


    [shakes head] (none / 0) (#135)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    There's circular logic and then there is mobius logic.

    i no longer email josh. (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    in my opinion his replies make no sense, are in denial and at times are rude. i won't be going back. let josh see after all this what his traffic is like.

    At this point... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Alvord on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    ... people like Josh Marshall are making fun of Hillary supporters. They live in their Obama bubble and just don't care about the majority of Democrats who support Hillary. I think some of them actually don't care if McCain wins the general election. They will view it as a victory if the Democratic party nominates an African-American candidate for the presidency.

    I sent him the exact same message (none / 0) (#217)
    by nellre on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    He's got to have seen a drop in web hits. Emails are no measure.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#220)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    perhaps I am not making a dent but as I look at the tabs in Firefox on my screen...not a single tab is populated by any JMM site.

    nor have I watched MSNBC or KO in a couple of weeks.

    They might not miss me.

    C'est la vie


    Hillary forced out.... (4.50 / 2) (#44)
    by Cayey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    Just after the PA primary, Hillary will be forced out of the race for one reason and one reason only, Money.  Obama is trying hard to cut into Hillary's supply of money and he believes he can do it by cutting her victory in PA by les than 10%. Sad,but true, he has the money, the media, the blogosphere and the time to do it.

    After that, all the SD will come out from under theirs covers and will kiss Obama,s ring and reclaim that they where with him from the begining. They will tell him that they knew from the start he was The One, true patriots and true democrats they are,I assume.Obama will ask Dean to please forgive FL/MI and let them sit at the convention, as a gesture of goodwill Dean will grant his wish.  No harm, no foul, he is The Uniter and all together will march to the GE. Hillary will endorse you  and if you ask she will also campaign for you.

    You might say that we are experiencing a historic moment in politics, an AA and a woman running for president of the USA. I agree, but will also add that by her actions Hillary has put women in this country if not in this whole world in the highest pedestal  human beings can be. All of us have seen how she has been treated by her opponent, by the media, by her enemies, and by her own democratic party. The Lady fought them all, against all odds, and she still standing, and she is making the kind of histoy that nobody can take away from her or from women.

    As for Senator Obama, my sicere congratulations, and may I suggest to him to work hard in FL and MI, remember those were the states discarded by him in order to win the nomination.  And to please do not use the "I was against the war from the begining" with Senator McCain, he will tell you he was in the US Senate under real pressure making a decision while you were pandering to a group  of liberals in Chicago trying to score political points.

    Senator Obama I wish you well in the GE.

    Senator Clinton, words scape my mind to express how proud I am of you and to honor you, I will sit this one out.

    Nah... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by smott on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:18:57 AM EST
    She will win PA big and that will give an uptick in her $$.  Enough to keep going for awhile.

    I hope (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cayey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    and pray that she wins big in PA and gets a big economic boost.

    Money? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    I'm not tapped out yet. I have an income tax refund plus my "stimulus check" coming.

    I'll invest in my and the country's future by donating to her campaign. I sure don't think Obama's got the chops to handle a recession.

    If you don't want her forced out, give what you can today. Five dollars is not too little.


    Care about the economy (none / 0) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    Here you go.... care about the economy?  Send your stimulus check to Clinton... get her in the White House so she can deal with some of the issues.

    I don't agree with PA (none / 0) (#242)
    by nycvoter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    Her money didn't dry up after Wisconsin, why after she wins Pa hands down?

    Popular vote (4.00 / 1) (#26)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Sen Obama currently leads by 813,945 w/IA, NV, ME, WA included that is just 3%Link

    PA registered Dem is 3,948,755 Link

    PA is a closed primary. IF (BIG IF) she get 56% of the votes, the she will only be 340,092 votes behind him the popular vote.

    Now, if "all te stars align" and she keeps her momentum... She CAN get the popular vote.

    He has to stop her in PA because that is where she can pick up the popular vote.

    From what I could find WV reg Dem are 648,889... but I think there will be more voting Dem.

    She leads in the polls for WV.

    NC is the closest. That will be the second place that BO needs to stop her.

    Now, if some one has BETTER MATH.. I would like to see it.

    Just one problem with your math (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    and that you cannot base it on 100% participation.  It will be high, for sure, but I think you should look at percentage of turnout in closed primaries already held, establish a likely number and go from there.  If PA has a 50% turnout, winning 56% of the vote is going to be a much lower number, and thus not make as much of a dent in the gap.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM EST
    I have not been able to find a projected turnout ... seems no one wants to predict since there has been record turn out for the Dem primary.

    I still think that if she gets the momentum she can chip away at the popular vote lead.

    For pledged delegates... she would have to get 70% in the remaining 10 primaries.

    If she gets the popluar vote (even just barely above BO) and his tanks in the ratings.... Teh Dems Party has to take another look!


    Using just (none / 0) (#183)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    just 40% show up for primary....and current polls for breakdown.....

    After PA & WV ... Obama would lead by 572,494 PV

    IN & NC is his best chance to stop her since they will favor Sen Obama. NC has then next largest PV after PA.

    PA, Guam, NC, Puerto Rico and OR (I feel) is her best chance.

    I feel a toss up on Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky.


    Estimates (none / 0) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:45:53 AM EST
    RCP is estimating caucus results.  I would rather see the primary result for WA.  It might be a beauty contest to some, but it was closer and more had the potential to be more inclusive.

    Does your scenario assume (none / 0) (#93)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    that every registered Dem in PA will vote in the primary? I believe a phenomenal primary turnout would be 50% of registered voters, but I may be wrong.

    I am just a "typical white person," (none / 0) (#84)
    by kenosharick on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:44:24 AM EST
    but the superdelegates have got to see how they would be throwing away any chance at the WH with Obama.This Wright issue resonates with the middle class, suburban voters and working class "reagan Dems" that are needed to win. This will not go away- the 527's have 100's of millions to spend in Mo.,Pa.,Wi.,Minn.,Ohio, Va., ect.

    speaking only for me, i have no so called (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    guilt. i take issue with myself based on my own conduct and not a group of people dead now for decades. i don't care for manipulation in any form. i keep reading this guilt is supposed to be influencing voters. duh!

    we need to be dicussing issues that affect the welfare of the country. now all we talk about is wright. sure we need to vet our candidates and that wasn't done here. more's the pity. now the media can swoop in with another diversion.


    Call me crazy, but (none / 0) (#104)
    by curryorama on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:57:25 AM EST
    I don't even understand how we as a party are still even considering Obama a viable candidate.  He cannot possibly win the GE.  There is no way in hell.  I take no pleasure in him going up in flames like this, but the reality is:  if he is our nominee, the Republicans will win by a landslide.

    Can someone (none / 0) (#106)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    verify this for me?

    I read Puerto Rico, with 69 delegates, is the only winner-take-all in the Democratic nomination process.

    Nope (none / 0) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    First off Puerto Rico only has 55 pledged delegates.  

    Secondly it is against DNC rules to have winner take all primaries.


    I read somewhere (none / 0) (#137)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    no link, sorry..that PR had been virtually unanimous in the past because they come so late in the schedule and the nominee had already been decided. Basically, the entire island voted for the presumptive nominee, so all delegates were awarded to that individual. That's where the "winner take all" rumor comes from.

    The Super Delegates need to look at THOSE (none / 0) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    Primary results state by state. They need to look at which states had caucuses, which states had caucuses & votes, which states had closed primaries vs open primaries, which state had cross over GOP votes. To begin with,I believe that you can take half of those cross-over votes right out of the equation. Democrat for a Day? What is up with that? Here in Pennsylvania, the GOP changing to Democrats are for Hillary in the GE too. They are not just doing it for a primary.(Well, maybe in Philly-Ha) I don't want at the end of the GE Republicans, aka KRove, laughing and saying Gotca.  

    In my scenario, and it means very little in the scope of so many experts, all these factors need to be taken into fact also. In Pennsylvania, Hillary is doing very well  and will take the state easily with the popular votes. It is a closed primary (which they all need to be IMHO)and that will be an indication of 'true' popular vote. That will be an indication of the General Election.

    Hillary can probably carry Florida if she is the last candidate standing. She will carry all the blue  states of the the Democratic Base. THAT is important. If the Democratic base is unhappy this election, I think they will stay home. I have heard too many people here and in other states say that and they are all staunch Democrats. Maybe BHO can win them over, but I think he has recently shown himself to give them more reason to sit this one out.

    I would like to see bean counters and Super Delegates run my scenario and see what the outcome would be like then. Why do people assume the popular vote was really the popular vote? We know it was manipulated. Shouldn't these factors be taken into consideration too?

    And finally, let's look to the 2000 election. Gore should not have even had a close race. But people saw this folksy guy who winked and Heh Heh'd everywhere and was saved by his Christian reborn from alcohol (and drugs)and destruction. People voted not even looking past the book cover and we all know how that turned out. George was a Bush but he was a DC outsider who inherited many of his Father's political advisers and would not give them up, no matter how wrong they were, out of the sake of loyalty. And that gives me pause.<I would like if we could crunch those numbers again and extrapolate the additional information. Why do people not think it odd that big wig Republicans did not discourage the cross over vote which would choose who the Democratic nominee would be in the GE? I do. I think they choose who they wanted to be running against. Tin foil? Not really. Just logic, or my logic to be exact.

    i also think the obama supporters (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:28:47 AM EST
    arrogantly assume that the hillary voters will be theirs by default. not so! i read a number of other blogs and pay attention to the comments i see. also remember that one in four primary voters in floria won't vote for obama because of his arrogant, distainful disenfranchisement of voters there. color me confused! i thought the point of this campaign was to win the presidential race and not run off the cliff with clinton hatred. the democratic so called leadership are the poorest, most pathetic bunch of do nothings i have ever seen. i keep feeling i live in a banana republic.

    Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#177)
    by Amaliada on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    I'm not aware if Big Tent Democrat or Jeralyn were as clear last year when the DNC made these stupid rules that voters would be disenfranchised.

    If they didn't, then it isn't fair to put this all on Obama's campaign.  But they probably didn't know about these rules when they were established; I'm not sure how many people outside the DNC were aware of them.

    The DNC set up this dynamic.  No one knew that Florida and Michigan would have been as important as they have become IF they only waited until after February 5 to have their primaries.

    I blame the DNC.  These rules are stupid, but they're no more stupid than disenfranchising voters who happen to be overseas when their state caucuses. Sure, I could have voted in the Global Primary, but I didn't feel that my vote was secure so I cast a worthless vote in my state.

    The Black Panthers used to call this contradictions.  I call it getting worked over by the people you support.

    And when we lose (none / 0) (#246)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    MI & FL in November, and the election along with it, I hope blaming the DNC makes you feel better.

    We need to reframe the argument (none / 0) (#188)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    If everything else was the same but the automatic delegates were the "pledged" delegates from the last state or group of states, should the voters those delegates represent cast their primary votes for:

    1. The candidate who is the current delegate leader?

    2. The candidate they like best?

    Hillary did not "put" her name (none / 0) (#189)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    on the ballot. Obama took his name off for his own reasons. Not the same at all. And definitely not sneaky.

    pointless to speculate why (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    but I will anyway...because she had nothing to lose, which is why I suppose that Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot...because they would have lost anyway.

    That of course has nothing to do with the issue of disenfranchisement because even though the rules were set by the DNC and even though the candidates understood what the rules meant, come the convention, it surely appears that Obama is in the unenviable position of arguing that the Michigan and the Florida delegates should not be seated and thus, make the argument for MI and FL disenfranchisement.

    This to come from the man who is suggesting that his candidacy is about uniting voters.


    I speculated only (none / 0) (#240)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM EST
    to raise the larger issue but yes, it was grabbing the bait.

    I'd guess that (none / 0) (#194)
    by bob5540 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:21 AM EST
    nobody here has listened to Wright's words beyond the "God Damn America" sound bite. What he really said wasn't significantly different from the MLK quote in E.J. Dionne's column:

    God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war.... And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place. ... [He'll say] "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

    Just as appropriate today as in 1964 -- if not more so.

    Understandably, Obama doesn't want to be associated with the sentiment, not before the election anyway. But let's be honest with our selves. Wright is no crazy extremist. He spoke truth.

    sorry, 1968 (none / 0) (#198)
    by bob5540 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    not 1964

    If you go to (none / 0) (#215)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    cnn.com/360, Roland Martin (I think) printed the entire sermons. IMO, there is a completely different feel when you read the whole sermon.'
    In fact, the "chicken come home to roost" was a quote from the (white) US Ambassador to Iraq.

    Was Wright speaking truth (none / 0) (#216)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    when he said Halloway got murdered because she was loose?  Was Wright speaking truth when he said that whites created the Aids virus to basically use against the black community?  Was Wright speaking truth when he said Clinton (a white man) had done to black people what he did to Lewinsky (riding dirty)?

    You can try to do what Obama did, and put them in context.  The truth is, many find the comments offensive.


    Obviously, many people will not (none / 0) (#222)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    be able to get beyond the statements. My point is simply that taking a statement out of context is unfair, regardless of whom you are quoting.
    I do not believe Obama should be judged on his preacher (yes, I know they have a 20 year relationship). I sat in a pew for many years, and heard plenty of things I disagreed with. There is more involved in your choice of church than the clergy.

    Choices (none / 0) (#228)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:26 PM EST
    When I did not like what I heard from the clergy, I got up and walked away.  Freedom of religion in America is really wonderful.  
    Obama wanted to run in a 76% AA district in Chicago.  Part of being a member of the community was joining a church. Wright's church is very powerful.  Obama used the church to get politically connected.  Now he owns it.  Can't pick and choose, you gotta stand for something.  This was Wrights church and he can say whatever he wanted.  Obama used it.  

    OK, you made a choice (none / 0) (#235)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    good for you. It does NOT mean anyone else is obligated to make that choice, or even that it was the correct choice.
    People attend church (or not) for a variety of reasons, and that has been the case throughout history. Even though I no longer practice organized religion, one important thing I took away from those years is that I am not worthy to judge others. I do believe that is a central position of most religions, yet it is cast aside regularly by many "church goers"

    About the second stage of the caucuses (none / 0) (#207)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    I know that last Saturday in Iowa they still went big for BO after the Wright controversy broke out.  However, it's a week later, we're still talking Wright, new polls show it's really hurt BO, and now there's the "typical white person" thing.  So, I think this may change some minds--I don't think they realized at the time how damaging this story was. IMO.

    This HRC should drop out stuff reminds me of late February.  I mean, come on....she has no reason to drop out now and it's obvious the people of OH, TX, and RI could have cared less about that meme.  

    I'm aware of the math, but I'm also aware of the fact that BO can't win w/o the SDs.  And things 'can' change w/ regard to FL and MI.  So this isn't over yet.  

    As someone pointed out earlier, BC didn't get the nod until June, so there's still plenty of time...


    The electability issue is extremely important (none / 0) (#210)
    by nellre on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:11:23 PM EST
    Especially in the swing states like MI and FL

    But if HRC is the nominee, the MI and FL folks will not feel so disenfranchised (I don't think... any residents of those states here?)
    The super delegates must and I mean must consider electability in the nominee they chose.
    Because of this indisputable and inescapable fact, I still think HRC has a shot.

    10 point swing for Obama since speech (none / 0) (#233)
    by magster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    according to Gallup.

    I differ (none / 0) (#249)
    by dannyinla on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    ...it is my opinion that because Florida and Michigan will not have a revote, Hillary Clinton's chances to win the nomination are slim at best...

    That's a generally factual statement.

    Here are some facts (none / 0) (#250)
    by Raheem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:10:07 PM EST
    From Hillary's first lady records... and how she helped bring peace to N. Ireland


    Arguments for a Timely Exit (none / 0) (#251)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
          The argument for Clinton leaving the primary includes the opportunity cost to the eventual candidate -- Barack Obama. He could be acting presidential instead of fighting in the trenches. Additionally, he will have to spend money in the primary instead of the general election. Luckily for him, he has not maxed out a few donors, like HRC, but he will still have to waste money that could be spent on a 50-state strategy.

          Another argument for Clinton's exit is that she will soon have to face the scrutiny that Obama has recently withstood. This will include the Clinton/Paul-Spiderman fraud trial and her recent "misstatements" regarding coming under enemy "sniper fire" in Bosnia. She has the opportunity to leave the primary relatively unscathed, while still retaining a great deal of power.

         I personally believe that the most important reason for HRC to exit the stage is that every attack she brings against BHO enables the republicans to use the same assault, while claiming, innocently, that those aren't mccain's veiws, but those of Hillary Clinton or her surrogates.

         The recent endorsement from Bill Richardson, which explicitly stated what Nancy Pelosi implicitly stated, provides the view of the super-super-delegates. It is time.  

         Finally, any Hillary Clinton supporter who claims he or she won't vote for Obama in 2008 is, in essence, voting for a republican to pack a Supreme Court while he falls further into the clutches of dementia. And nobody wants that.