With respect to the likelihood of her having more delegates than him in mid-June, I refer everyone to
this video at 1:31.

The most depressing thing to me is that the numbers of polled Obama supporters who say they won't vote for Hillary in the general if she win's the nomination and the number of Clinton supporters who say they won't support Obama if he wins has been rising rapidly over the past month. The longer this race for the nomination continues, the worse the party's situation gets and the less time the party has to heal.

Hillary will not and almost cannot win the nomination. If she'd won by a 40 point margin last night, it would still be next to impossible for her to win. So what is she doing? She's rolling out the red carpet for John McCain, an opponent any Democrat would have a tough time defeating.

I think people have been too quick to judge Clinton as down for the count. I think she is proving that she still has a fighting chance. Whether or not its a good think - you decide. I'm not here to tell anyone who to support. I'm just trying to point out the fact that this is still a tight race, and we still have two viable candidates for the nomination.

norbiz...your video link doesn't work...or maybe it's just my computer...

Regarding her win, I just don't know what to think. I, still, cannot say who I am going to support for president. Personally, they all are really bad candidates.

norbizness, your link didn't show up. I'd be interested in seeing the video. Could you repost it?

There's no link.

The only chance Hillary has is if Obama should "meet with an accident" or if he should turn up in a sex tape -and I'm not so sure about the latter.

does_this_screenname_make_me_look_feminist?:

Before last night, Clinton needed to win approximately 67% of the remaining votes to come out ahead in the popular vote. She came nowhere close to that in one of the last states where she theoretically had a chance to win by such a ridiculous margin, so now she needs to win with maybe 70% or more in every remaining contest in order to win the popular vote. So in a way, her showing last night almost guarntees she won't come out ahead in pledged delegates or the popular vote. And if she wins the nomination without the popular vote, McCain is a shoe in.

"I think people have been too quick to judge Clinton as down for the count."

I agree, and I say go girl. If there's one thing this lady has proven over the last few months, it's that you can never truly count her out, and I think that's great. Whether you support her or not, whether you think she'd do good things for women in office or not, she's doing better in this race than anyone thought she would, and that's good for women.

I also worry about loyalty to the Democratic party. Don't these Obama/Hillary supporters who say they wouldn't vote for the candidate they aren't supporting realize that that is handing the White House to the Republicans...for the third time in a ROW?!! It boggles the mind how stupid people can be.

From the nytimes article:

"The Associated Press, also found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all."

The numbers were similar, if not higher in Ohio. As with most data in this area, the assumption is that the actual numbers are higher because many just aren't willing to admit it. There was also a report out yesterday about people in Indiana burning Obama signs and shouting racial slurs at (white!) Obama supporters. Overall, I still think we can win this election, I just hate being reminded that there is still a segment of our country that won't vote for a black person or a woman for that matter.

Yay! I'm happy she will still be in the race so I can vote for her next month. Go Clinton!

WheresTheBeef?:

That's truly awful. I wonder what the numbers are for Clinton's gender in the same regard.

Also, I think the general can be won, too, but it's going to take incredible voter turnout and hopefully a few McCain temper outbursts. Maybe he'll call someone a trollop? Wait, he did that already. And on that note, I'll stop spamming this comment thread.

Dio,

Does the popular vote really matter? I question whether or not it does because of what we saw with Vice President Gore when he went up against Bush.

I can understand black voters not wanting to support Hilary in the event of her winning the nomination. She can only take the nomination, after all, by convincing the superdelegates to pick her over the candidate who actually has the most votes (Michigan doesn't count because Obama wasn't on the ballot), most delegates, and most states. If the superdelegates were to take that course, they would do so at the majority of Democratic voters, among them an overwhelming majority of black voters who have never flagged in their support of the Democratic party and to whom the Democrats are greatly indebted to.

If the Democratic Party were to choose Hilary at the expense of black voters and the first viable black presidential candidate ever, they'd have nobody to blame but themselves and their own lack of foresight in the upcoming election when McCain takes the White House.

I seriously doubt the superdelegates are so stupid as subvert the democratic process and disenfranchise a key source of support for them in every election, though.

Fucking Hell. If Clinton had any pride or self-respect she'd own up to the fact that she's out of cash, out of time & out of the running. But she doesn't, so the rest of us have to watch her one-trick pony of a vanity campaign suck even more oxygen out of the room.

ATTN Senator Clinton: Dick Cheney called. He wants his 9/11 card back.

Sorry about the video link; it was just "Once in a Lifetime" by Talking Heads, with the 1:31 mark being David Byrne repeating "same as it ever was..."

Let's try again.

she's doing better in this race than anyone thought she would, and that's good for women.

This is a joke right? This election was tailor-made for Clinton and she's blowing it. 9 months ago, everybody assumed that it was hers to lose.

Now she's losing to some nobody congressman that nobody outside Illinois had ever heard of.

She's the choker here, not Obama. A black man running against a former first lady connected with the most popular Democratic president in the last 40 years with political connections going back 30 years should have been no contest at all for Clinton.

When this thing is said and done, the historians will be writing about the shocking story that a nobody like Obama could actually beat the well-established Clinton machine.

I love Hillary's guts. Every single Main Stream Media outlet that has crammed Republicans down our throats from Nixon onward is telling us to vote for the man. Anything but voting for a woman and they are all backing Barrack.

I have watched the misogynistic beating down of Feminism and women since the 1960s.

Clinton is the first candidate I have ever felt this strongly about. It is like, "At last a candidate, a real Democrat who is a woman.

Every insult I hear aimed at her by all the misogynists are the same insults that were aimed at feminists from the time I was a teenager fighting in the anti-Vietnam War Movement.

I realized by 1969 the only difference between male lefties Black male radicals and liberals and right wingers were the length of their hair and the shape and form of their woman hating.

I used to say "Liberal progressive feminist men think it would be wonderful for their wives to have careers teaching in Montessori Schools. As long as they come home with enough energy to cook, clean and get dressed up like a hooker and fuck like a rabbit for them since they have the important career."

To me Obama is just another man. I won't send money to his campaign the way I have sent hundreds of dollars to Clinton's campaign. I won't wear a pin promoting him or stick a bumper sticker on my car.

If he is the candidate I will vote for him with all the enthusiasm I voted for Dukakis in 1988 with, which is to say none at all. The only reason I would vote for him would be for the Party.

Abby: in a race this damaging to the party that will eventually decide who runs against a candidate who has big support among moderates? Yes, it does. Remember, there's no electoral college in primaries, just pledged delegates and super delegates, meaning that if Hillary loses in the popular vote, which she almost certainly will, she needs a disproportionate percentage of super delegates to win the nomination. That weakens not only her case, but the case of the democratic parties (McCain would run with this, for sure) and it would cause a great deal of disillusionment among Dem. voters who would otherwise be expected to turn out in record numbers.

Aside from the general election roadblocks it would cause, Hillary winning by way of super delegates would just be a sad representation of our [un]democratic process.

BTW, you guys should use the CNN delegate counter. You can simulate the rest of the race.

The bottom line is that Clinton is still sunk.

Here's the numbers I plugged in:

HRC wins PA, IN by 12 points

HRC wins WV, KY, PR by 20 points

Obama wins NC, OR, SD, Guam by 8 points

Under that scenario, HRC would have to win the unpledged superdelegates by a 60/40 margin or higher to catch up with Obama in total delegates. If she even splits the remaining margin 50/50 Obama cruises to 2025.

Given that Obama has won about 70 superdelegates with HRC winning about 5 over the last 2 months, its not looking very good for Clinton.

There's no way in hell she's going to capture a 60/40 margin of remaining superdels, even if she wins Indiana, Puerto Rico, WV, and KY by large margins.

For you guys talking about the "democratic process"...

I thought the two candidates were currently much closer in terms of "popular vote" than they were in terms of delegate count?

"That new popular vote total (not counting FL or MI) has Obama leading Clinton, 49%-47%. For those keeping score, that's a difference of 483,129. ... So those remaining contests, per this conservative projection, bring Obama’s popular vote lead to 515,629. If you add Florida, that gives Clinton almost another 300,000 more. So you if you include the Sunshine State, Obama will still lead her by about 215,000 popular votes. No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement."

From msnbc.com

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935854.aspx

Hillary's win is bad news if you're a Democrat, irrespective of whether you think she is the better candidate. This is because: 1) she can win only win if she gets supers to break for her; 2) she can only get the supers to vote for her if Obama, who has a delegate and popular vote lead, is rendered unelectable; 3) therefore, her campaign strategy must be to destroy Obama's general election prospects; 4) Though she can win, she almost certainly won't, given that even the "win" in Pennsylvania resulted in about a 50/50 split of delegates; 5) consequently, all Clinton is going to do is damage Obama before she eventually concedes, so that he's a weak candidate come the general election. Things look bleak to me right now.

Again, even if you support Hillary as a candidate, the time has passed where her continued presence in the campaign was healthy for the party or the country.

Hi guys.
I'm really sad at what I'm reading here.

A lot of people say that Hillary should just leave, but they forget some things:

1)She can never obtain the number of delegates for the nomination. But neither Obama can! This election *will* be decided by what the superdelegates do, one way or another
2)Counting FL and MI, after PA she's already ahead of delegates AND popular vote. She's the candidate in the history of america who has been voted by the most people

I agree that MI probably doesn't count, but Florida does, since both their names were on the battles and polls show that with a revote she will still win that state with a 20% difference.
They don't do revote because they don't want her to win.
3)With Hillary we have more chances to win: in an electoral matchup with mc cain Obama loses important swing states, including Florida, and has a hard time even in states like Massachussets!
4)Clinton supporter that won't vote for Obama are now much much more than the Obama supporters that won't vote for Clinton

"consequently, all Clinton is going to do is damage Obama before she eventually concedes,"

My mom, who granted is kinda biased towards women's issues vs. civil rights issues and not the same as me politically, makes what I think is nonetheless a very valid point, which is:

Once Obama becomes the nominee, the Republicans will do a lot more research on his background and we will hear a lot more things about him (some maybe rumor, some factual) that we currently as a country don't know. He could beat McCain, or he could lose by a lot. (I mean, look at how much the Wright thing shook a bunch of people up... I'm sure there are other things that could be spun by Republicans to have as much or more impact...)

Clinton, on the other hand, the country already knows more about, so the chances of someone suddenly "discovering" something that would cause a bunch of voters to leave her is slimmer...

If Clinton was male, would everyone be telling HIM to get out of such a close race? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I lurk on Feministing every day, and I get that people/women/young feminists are really pumped up about Obama. He seems like he has a lot of potential. And, he's a wonderful orator. But, I'm from Illinois, and I seem to recall voting for him in a different election. Best I can tell, he's not actually doing THAT job.

And honestly, all this mothers vs. daughters rhetoric about Clinton and Obama really discounts the fact that there many of us younger women wholeheartedly support Clinton because she is the more qualified candidate.

If Clinton was a white male, she'd probably be in the lead.

Sad, but true.

And any attacks you feel Clinton is making on Obama, if he becomes the nominee the Republicans' attacks will be much more intense than anything we're seeing Clinton do now...

Ninapendamaishi: I can assure you the Clinton campaign started digging as hard as they could months ago and they've come up with little to use. The stuff they have come up with blew up in their faces.

Lou: I would be saying the same thing about ANY candidate, regardless of gender. I can't speak for everyone, but I am pretty sure your hyperbole misses the mark. The facts make that clear enough.

Obama's not my favorite candidate, neither is Clinton, but with Justice Stevens aging up towards the century mark and sure to retire in the next administration, I can say I have a duty to support the candidate most likely to win, and that, any way you cut it, is not Clinton. Not at this point. Maybe before her campaign squandered the popular vote and the support of so many delegates, but not now and not tomorrow.

Dio, Clinton didn't "dig up" everything. She never mentioned Obama's priest or Obama's friendship with a terrorist until the media "discovered" it, even if it were old news . And she fired a guy who was trying to use Obama's history of drug abuse against him.

The fault is on the USA press.
If they had vetted Obama before (a president candidate friend with a terrorist? Are you kidding me?) , the primary would have been already finished and we'll be ready to concentrate our energies for Clinton vs McCain

"I can assure you the Clinton campaign started digging as hard as they could months ago and they've come up with little to use. The stuff they have come up with blew up in their faces"

Every single election cycle, after the race is down to two candidates, stuff changes. I mean, everyone thought Gore was going to win against Bush, until the last few months of that election...

Stuff changes. Stuff will more than likely change... somehow.

Even if there is not a lot there for an Obama opponent to pick up on, stuff can always be spun in new and different ways...

I just think it's kind of nonsensical to fault Clinton of hurting Obama, when he's going to be facing as many or more attacks after she drops out of the race...

The arguments about popular vote are INCREDIBLY disingenuous considering FL & MI are always included in HRC's total despite the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI (because it was stripped of its delegates for violating election law), and she was the only Dem to campaign in FL after making an agreement with the rest of the candidates not to (because, again, it was stripped of its delegates for violating election law). Those states should, I believe, not have been entirely disenfranchised, but the fact remains that they were (and guess who voted to strip their delegates? The majority of the DNC -- including HRC.) The popular vote coming out of those states is meaningless. (Those elections would have to be held again in order to count -- you know, with everyone's names actually on the ballots.)

Also, yes, super delegates will have to come into play here. Neither candidate will get the 2025 required to secure the nom without them. BUT if Obama goes into the convention ahead in delegates, and HRC leaves the convention as the nominee, people will see that as the party turning its back on the will of the people. And despite the fact that this scenario could happen without any kind of foul play or rule-breaking (super delegates are a part of the system), it will be perceived very, very badly.

Look, I like Obama and I like Clinton. The thing is, I'd like a tin can with a 'D' painted on it more than I like McCain, and I'm afraid that all of this data-twisting that's allowing Clinton to remain in the race as a "viable candidate" is going to end up hurting us. The longer this drags out among the Dems, the longer McCain gets a free pass without competition. That's scary.

I agree that if it were a male candidate running on Clinton's current numbers, say Edwards, no one would be calling on him to drop out of the race. Furthermore, I don't see any concrete evidence that Obama can beat McCain in the general election. If he's so much more electable than Clinton, how did he lose CA, MA, and Ohio (I exclude NY because it's Clinton's home state)? I just feel like the "evil Clinton attack" excuse is getting old, and the notion that Clinton's support lies primarily amongst embittered old feminists is quite frankly ignorant and condescending. As for doing what's "good for the party" - what has the party done for me lately, except kow towing to the Bush administration and special interests at our expense? If the democrats lose the white house again it'll be due to their own ineptitude as a party, they can't pin that on us, regardless of whether we vote for Clinton or Obama. That's just my opinion. I think that's where our righteous indignation should be directed, at the Democratic party leadership rather than at eachother.

I don't think it's nonsensical at all.

What some people don't account for is Clinton's ability to reach people whom McCain and the Republican attack machine cannot. Right now, she's speaking to the Democratic party and sowing distrust and a lack of faith in the leading candidate in a way that McCain could never hope to.

Additionally, imagine the support Obama would be seeing if Hilary supported him, perhaps not fully but at least to the degree where her supporters understood that they ought to vote for Obama instead of McCain in the event of him earning the Democratic Nomination.

@ DallasSuz: You're my hero. Thank you for posting those thoughts -- I think that that kind of sentiment has been sadly missing on this site and in this election process.

Ninapendamaishi: Why's it nonsensical? She is hurting him. It's in the polls. It's making him more vulnerable to future attacks. She can't win, but she stays and engages in one of the most negative campaigns ever and wrecks the democrat's chance of replacing Stevens with someone who doesn't think Abortion is EVIL.

ClaudiaFromItaly: Somehow I'm not surprised you're so concerned with lopside mud-slinging. The "USA press" is very good at what you're trying to do. Everyone I know has friends with questionable views and associations. Why should I be surprised Obama and Clinton, despite polishing, are much the same in this regard?

Not campaining in Florida??? Obama spent 2 millions in ads in Florida. Perhaps you didn't know that

I don't mean to pick a fight, but any arguments involving the phrase "if she were a man" -- or for that matter the word "if" -- are kind of silly.

I mean, "IF" she hadn't been married to the president for 8 years and had all the name recognition and political and media connections she earned as a result, she wouldn't be where she is today either. And I don't mean to discredit her accomplishments in any way, or overlook the fact that Bill probably wouldn't have been president without her, but we could reconfigure this race in an infinite number of counter-factual ways, and none of them has any relevance to the real world.

That being said, I don't think she should be pressured to drop out, but I DO think she should ratchet down the negativity a notch or 2. As the polls have demonstrated, she's damaging herself more than Obama. In fact the only one who clearly benefits is McCain.

I don't get it. If, as so many of you assert, she's got no chance of winning and should just drop out, then her continuing campaign won't hurt Obama. He can sit back and relax, secure in his win, and focus his energies and strategies on McCain. If she can hurt and beat him, then she has no reason to stop trying. You can't have it both ways. Either she has no chance or she should drop out. Not both.

Claudia--

He ran ads until the DNC voted to strip their delegates. Then he honored his pledge to stop campaigning there.

Perhaps you did not know that.

How can you talk about a democratic process when Florida and Michigan don't count?
And I see here somebody doesn't know about Obama's flood of TV ads in the Orlando area that Craig Crawford tells us about.
Florida and Michigan's representation was unfairly taken away.
Sign the petition to have them seated at http://tinyurl.com/5lcaww.

"I don't get it. If, as so many of you assert, she's got no chance of winning and should just drop out, then her continuing campaign won't hurt Obama. He can sit back and relax, secure in his win, and focus his energies and strategies on McCain. If she can hurt and beat him, then she has no reason to stop trying. You can't have it both ways. Either she has no chance or she should drop out. Not both."

Being able to hurt him and being able to beat him don't go hand in hand.

It's largely understood that, while she cannot beat him, she's hurting. Not enough for her to win, but perhaps enough for McCain to win.

That said, I don't think it's her responsibility to drop out, but rather the responsibility of the Democratic Party to do what is best for our chances in November. That said, it could be argued that she has a responsibility to her party, but that only goes as far as you're willing to believe that one's responsibilities to a party can go when they run contrary to personal ambition.

EG: As much as I would like that to be true, it's not. Her campaign is very negative, and negative campaigns hurt both candidates. It's not only common sense, but it shows in the numbers of disaffected supporters from both camps.

Plus, when we say "she can't win," we say that keeping in mind that Obama's going to continue campaigning and not go on vacation until August.

A chess player 3 moves from checkmate will almost certainly win, but not if they just stop playing. I've seen you post here before, you're smarter than this.

Clinton supporter that won't vote for Obama are now much much more than the Obama supporters that won't vote for Clinton..

So now Clinton has to resort to electoral blackmail to get the nomination. The Joy, the Thrill, the Rapture.

If Clinton gets the nomination, then we're guaranteed a McCain presidency. Clinton is just another Right-Of-Centre business-as-usual political android rolled off the assembly line at the Conservative DLC Android Factory. The same folks who brought the Kerry('04), Gore('00), Dukakis('88) & Mondale('84) models. All of them built to spout test-marketed platitudes & snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I wish I could say that I still had the same measure of respect for Clinton that I did at the beginning of the primaries, but now I've got nothing but contempt. I refuse to give any credibility to an intelligent person who insists on making stupid mistakes, kisses the ass of McCain while taking sour-graping potshots at her Democratic rival, takes a verbal steaming dump on MoveOn.org, offers the VP slot to Obama while she's clearly floundering in his wake, sounds more like Joe Leiberman every time she speaks, & adopts an overall campaign strategy based on the question "Gee, what straw can I grasp at today?".

If Jon Stewart can put Tucker Carlson in his place in the space of a sentence, his assessment of Clinton can be just as clear-eyed.

Larry King: "Will the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton?"

Jon Stewart: "Only if they want to lose."

I echo EG. If there is no way in hell she could win, then really - why isn't he concentrating all of his efforts on running against McCain already? If she is really done, why does he continue to compete for the nomination?

"You can't have it both ways. Either she has no chance or she should drop out. Not both."

E.G.: The point is that she does have a very slight chance to win, but the only way she can win is to badly damage Obama. So Obama can't just "sit back and relax" because, to win, Clinton must spend the next several months tearing him apart. So since its POSSIBLE but NOT LIKELY, that she will win, all Clinton will most likely do is damage Obama before he gets nominated.

So a realistic appraisal of the situation shows that she could win, but that she ought not to try, because she probably won't, and will damage Obama in the process. And, even if she does win, she will have successfully alienated Obama supporters who watched her tear their candidate apart.

So people who suggest that she can't win are wrong. She can, but she should not try. Because if she does, she must use tactics that will one way or another weaken the party.

Well, speaking of all this "who's more likely to beat McCain" perspective... I think we all need to regularly acknowledge that claiming who'd be more likely to beat McCain is speaking out of you-know-whats...

Polls indicate that currently either Obama or Clinton would run a tight race against McCain. As you can see from the graphs, these numbers have been constantly fluctuating and will likely continue to fluctuate until the election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

so so so ad infinitum.

I need to learn to write better.

I'm at the point where I don't even care who wins now. This has gone on soooooooooooooo long I just want it all to be over!! I'm burnt out on politics!

"And, even if she does win, she will have successfully alienated Obama supporters who watched her tear their candidate apart. "

Well, doesn't "successfully tear Obama apart" indicate she would also have /won/ a lot of support from Obama's camp? The people who wouldn't vote for Clinton already poll as not voting for Clinton, I think...

Also, Obama /has/ said negative things about Clinton, and Obama's supporters sure as heck have. Why is it Obama isn't villainized for /his/ petty negative comments?

Listen, hate him, hate her. But when it comes down to a name in November, when you've "got nothing but contempt" for either, are you going to facilitate the Republican race for the White House?

When I hear how her nomination would roll out the red carpet for McCain to be the President, I can't help but think that will be because of you fools who insist that will happen, and won't vote for her (or go as far as vote for McCain himself) to make your case!

I like the example of whoever said they'd rather vote for a tin can with a D painted on it than vote for McCain... that was pretty funny, but also true for me...

My mom also made the point that whoever is voting for Obama but who would not vote for Clinton in a Clinton vs. McCain race, is voting for Obama for the wrong reasons...

And those people won't stick around to help a more liberal democratic party stay in power for several years anyway...

Well, speaking of all this "who's more likely to beat McCain" perspective... I think we all need to regularly acknowledge that claiming who'd be more likely to beat McCain is speaking out of you-know-whats...

A charismatic young black man with a vibrant, engaging personality that stays cool under fire & says that Operation Desert Storm v.2 never should have happened...

VS.

a pasty, puffy, flabby, worn-out, washed-up old fart of a Mr. Utra-McCrankypants who calls his much-younger trophy wife a "cunt" in public, projects as much charisma as a bowl of uncooked rice, runs off at the mouth about how Vietnam was perfectly winnable & simply can. not. shut up about how he'll keep Americans dying in Iraq for the next 100 years.

Yeah. REAL tight race there.

Smartpatrol:

Did you look at the poll numbers I pasted links to?

Do you realize that, given the mindsets and worldviews of US citizens as a whole (and given the large number who are conservative or moderate and love white male vets), what you just said is utterly ridiculous??

I like the example of whoever said they'd rather vote for a tin can with a D painted on it than vote for McCain... that was pretty funny, but also true for me...

Dittio.

As an undecided voter in a state yet to vote, I'm both excited and anxious. I've posted about it on my new blog, http://thealogian.blogspot.com/
if anyone is interested.

peace

Jem: I mentioned the red carpet bit, and it was more in terms of Clinton damaging Obama's campaign. In the freak chance Clinton win's the nomination, I willcertainly vote for her.

Ninapendamaishi: As stated before, there are more Clinton supporters saying they won't vote for Obama than vice versa. MOST people in this country vote for the wrong reasons and that is EXACTLY why Clinton's negative campaign is a bad bad thing for either her OR Obama's chances against McCain.

Ninapendamaishi: At this point, it's just about superdelegates, not voters. Clinton's professed strategy is aimed at getting supers to go their way, because they know they won't win the popular vote or pledged delegate count. So it will cause a lot of bitterness among Obama voters if the supers go for Clinton after she smears him and makes her prediction of Obama's unelectability true.

Sure Obama has said negative things about Clinton. I'd argue that he hasn't been as bad a culprit, but that's beside the point. The difference is that Clinton's strategy relies upon literally making Obama unelectable, and then making the argument to supers that he's unelectable. Obama, on the other hand, is practicing normal campaign politics of putting down his opponent. He's not trying to make her unelectable, because he's not making an electability argument.

The broader point is that its unexcusable for a candidate to pursue a campaign strategy that relies upon making her opponent, the front runner and very very likely nominee, unelectable.

"As stated before, there are more Clinton supporters saying they won't vote for Obama than vice versa."

I know. That doesn't make my above statement inaccurate, however. It's maybe worth commenting on only if you're someone who views Obama's campaign as a really promising thing for the future of political progressives...

"MOST people in this country vote for the wrong reasons "

I don't know if that's true, but a lot of them do.

You know why I think maybe more Clinton voters would not vote for Obama than vice versa? B/c there are more moderate liberals than true liberals in this country...

Doesn't mean I like it. I'm very liberal, personally. But it does kind of limit the power Obama could have in any position as well...

Dio - I am going to contest your assertion to Ninapendamaishi. I strongly believe this is influenced by location. I am in Obama ground zero and I can definitely tell you that I see the complete opposite of what you said.

Jem:

Dio is talking about national poll numbers. I'm sure it does vary by location...

Ahh, thanks for claryfing. By the way, do you guys really take all those polls seriously?

Jem: read the papers the comments earlier in this thread. The polls show it to be true.

Ninapendamaishi: I didn't claim it made your statement inaccurate. I'm just showing these issues go both ways.

"It's maybe worth commenting on only if you're someone who views Obama's campaign as a really promising thing for the future of political progressives..."

What??

I think polls can give us a better idea than our own speculation based on personal thoughts and experiences can...

I know polls have varying margins of error though.

Do you realize that, given the mindsets and worldviews of US citizens as a whole (and given the large number who are conservative or moderate and love white male vets), what you just said is utterly ridiculous??

Given that the demographic majority of Americans are closer to Oprah Winfrey than to the Legion of Lesser Strom Thurmonds you're referring to, I'm confident that they'll exercise their intelligence & vote for their interests & avoid the same mistakes as the Incredibly Shrinking Demographic Of Fossilized Old White Cranks With A Sense Of Entitlement Who Yell At Their TV Sets did by voting against them.

So a realistic appraisal of the situation shows that she could win, but that she ought not to try, because she probably won't, and will damage Obama in the process. And, even if she does win, she will have successfully alienated Obama supporters who watched her tear their candidate apart.

So what you're saying is that she's going to be harder on Obama than McCain? That somehow she'll dig up dirt and tear him apart but McCain won't? Maybe if Obama can't take a vicious primary, he's not ready for the Big Show.

""It's maybe worth commenting on only if you're someone who views Obama's campaign as a really promising thing for the future of political progressives..."

What??"

Many people look at Obama and his supporters and claim to see great promise and potential there for his candidacy and for the future of political progressiveness in the U.S.

But if you consider the percentage of his supporters that would rather vote for McCain than vote for Clinton, that takes away from that argument, that his campaign and supporters are as a whole a more promising thing than Clinton's (again, from the perspective of political progressives...)

"Given that the demographic majority of Americans are closer to Oprah Winfrey than to the Legion of Lesser Strom Thurmonds you're referring to, I'm confident that they'll exercise their intelligence & vote for their interests & avoid the same mistakes as the Incredibly Shrinking Demographic Of Fossilized Old White Cranks With A Sense Of Entitlement Who Yell At Their TV Sets did by voting against them."

Umm... Do you realize that George W. Bush was elected to two terms? Do you realize that almost every president our populace has ever elected was a wrinkly old white male?
I don't know where you live, but I feel like you must have spent your life sheltered in a bastion of liberalness

Nina, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Even though a higher percentage of Clinton voters would vote for McCain in the general election or not vote at all, this somehow reflects more badly on the Obama supporters because they should be more "promising"?

EG: I'm not saying Clinton's being harder on Obama than McCain would be. I'm saying that she's handicapping Obama in his likely race against McCain by test-driving the GOP hit job. McCain can say: "even Clinton said Obama hasn't passed the Commander in Chief test"; or "you know, as Senator Clinton has pointed out, calling Americans bitter is really elitist." The point is, it will be very hard for Obama and the democratic party to refute GOP talking points if Hillary Clinton has already used those talking points herself. It gives the arguments greater acceptability and credence.

headdesk

Dear Sen. Clinton:

Thank you for being the first viable female presidential contender. Thank you for giving Sen. Obama your best Karl Rove. He's a much better prepared match for the republican hate machine and I appreciate your hard work in getting him where he needs to be to win in November.

However, math is not your friend. It's over and by now your staffers have no doubt dug up every conceivable stain on your opponent's reputation. Now that we're heard it all and we've heard him fight back, there's nothing to talk about between now and June. Unless Sen. Obama gets caught being fellated by Tony Rezko, you cannot win the nomination.

Save your money and go back to the senate and work hard for the working people you claim to care so much about. Your work there is valuable and important to the party and I appreciate it.

Ninapendamaishi: Thanks for the clarification, but I think your logic rests on too broad a generalization. Regardless, we'll know the answers soon enough.

I'm really hoping Dem. voter turnout makes up for all the parties primary blunders so we don't have to see McCain in office.

Do you realize that George W. Bush was elected to two terms?

Both rigged & stolen. The evidence that's been uncovered by genuine journalists like Greg Palast, Amy Goodman & Robert Greenwald is out there for anyone who can be bothered to look.

Do you realize that almost every president our populace has ever elected was a wrinkly old white male?

Correction: A middle-aged to old white rich male. Part of the reason MLK was murdered was because he did the math & saw the direct connection between racism & poverty, saw that the poor whites had more in common with black folk than the rich whites who owned & operated the power structures & set out to make that connection explicit in the form of the Poor People's Campaign.

I don't know where you live, but I feel like you must have spent your life sheltered in a bastion of liberalness

RedState much?

CLINTON DANCE TIME!!!!

Oh yeah....

What rileystclair said.

I voted for Clinton in February, but if I had it to do over again, I'd vote for Obama.

I support Clinton, I think she's qualified, and I think she deserves this. If she wins the nomination, I will absolutely vote for her again.

But I also feel that, of late, she has compromised her dignity in a scramble to get ahead. Her ads have gone negative, she's lied, and she's pandered. I feel that her message is a negative one with the intention of instilling fear in voters, and I just can't get behind that.

She's a smart, capable lady, and I think she has *every* right to keep campaigning, but I don't think it's going to go her way, and I won't be distraught if she doesn't get it.

"Nina, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Even though a higher percentage of Clinton voters would vote for McCain in the general election or not vote at all, this somehow reflects more badly on the Obama supporters because they should be more "promising"? "

No, it doesn't make one's support base worse than the other. Rather, it makes them more similar than some Obama supporters like to think.

This has been my basic thesis throughouot much of this election cycle... the candidates are overall similar, their support base even moreso (or at least, whatever differences there are can definitely not be qualified as Obama supporters being more /progressive/ than Clinton supporters)

"RedState much? "

No. I grew up in a red area, I've lived several years in a very liberal area. So I have the perspective of different areas. Nevertheless, I think probably the reason other posters haven't engaged with you, is they recognize that you're a bit beyond the brim for cluelessness... I think I'll follow suit.

Nina:
But if you consider the percentage of his supporters that would rather vote for McCain than vote for Clinton, that takes away from that argument, that his campaign and supporters are as a whole a more promising thing than Clinton's (again, from the perspective of political progressives...)

Where's The Beef:
ven though a higher percentage of Clinton voters would vote for McCain in the general election or not vote at all, this somehow reflects more badly on the Obama supporters because they should be more "promising"?

You're both so right and folks are all so wrong. Saying that Obama's constituents are promising is unrelated to (and in diametric opposition to) the numbers reflecting those who would not vote for Clinton in the general election.

Likewise, for Clinton's supporters of their lack of support for Obama.

It seems to me like the contest has gotten less cordial and more aggressive in the past little bit and it goes to show what a torpedoing this whole drawn-out primary cycle has led to.

Further, it attests to how utterly ridiculous people on both sides are. I mean, Nina, don't you see how casting only Obama's supporters as being irrationally unsupportive of Clinton, just a few lines down from someone pointing out that these idiocies cut both ways, adds to this "he's worse"/"she's worse" duality...

Ugh. It doesn't even have to be this way.

Further, the requests for Clinton to back down sidesteps the real core of the issue - which is why can't people who have similar interests agree with one another... or, why can't a primary contest be about who's the better candidate, not who's the worst candidate?

Disgusting. Both of them are trying to up their numbers by showing how terrible the other one is... no matter how much Clinton talks about her collective efforts with Obama and how much Obama talks about how much respect he has for Clinton... in the end, both of them are working really hard to undermine the other rather than really persuade the voters that they'd be excellent in the position.

Maybe this is a result of how coverage works, how the debate moderators spew fecal matter out of their mouths or whatever... but, honestly, I've been trained a bit in talking to media and it shouldn't matter what the questions are - both of these candidates are doing themselves a disservice by sticking to the negative.

And, come on, EG:
Maybe if Obama can't take a vicious primary, he's not ready for the Big Show.

Are you serious? People respond to what they understand... if the people are bombarded with negative images of both Democratic candidates, when it gets to the general election, the residue from all that garbage will undoubtedly help the GOP... undoubtedly. There's no excuse for that - both from an ethical and from a strategic standpoint. Your argument that Obama should be able to put up with it is a distraction and pulls away from the point that it would be MUCH BETTER if the Democrats weren't so consumed with chewing each other up and more concerned with building a positive reference for both candidates in the public eye before the GOP (who has traditionally had a much better media machine) gets a hold of things.

Ugh.

I should rephrase that. What I mean is "whatever differences there are can definitely not be qualified as /simply/ Obama supporters being more /progressive/ than Clinton supporters"

Some Obama supporters may be more progressive, some may simply be idealist. But a certain percentage of his folders /are/ there, I think, b/c of a cult of personality. I just don't think you can simplify the case for either candidate...

"Thank you for giving Sen. Obama your best Karl Rove."

This idea that Clinton is doing Obama a favor by acting like Karl Rove is twisted. It's kind of like saying that parents should say sexist things to their daughters so that they're ready when they confront real sexism as adults.

"It's kind of like saying that parents should say sexist things to their daughters so that they're ready when they confront real sexism as adults."

It's not "kind of like that" because Clinton is not "kind of like" Obama's mother...
Are you expecting she should be?

Ninapendamaishi: The idea that Clinton is somehow educating young Obama in the ways of politics by being Rovian does indeed put her in some kind of weird parenting role. That's part of what I'm trying to point out. It's condescending to suggest that Obama doesn't know what Republicans are going to throw at him in the general, and that Clinton has to show him the ropes with tough love.

Puck, I agree that this back and forth over which candidate’s supporters are worse is unproductive. I initially brought up the point that Obama supporters were less likely to defect to John McCain than Clinton supporters on another thread to challenge the characterization of Obama supporters as cult-like fanatics. I think we can agree that there are a few bad apples on both sides, but on the whole we just have a lot of people who are enthusiastic about their candidate (and that’s a GOOD thing).

That said, what did people think of that scathing nytimes editorial?

I'm very disappointed by all of the anti-Clinton sentiments on this page.

I have a really hard time believing that so many people would be talking about how she is destroying the Democratic Party, if she weren't Hillary Clinton.

How can we so easily count out a candidate who won by ten points last night? If she were really so disliked and an awful choice, would she have won? Furthermore, it seems unbelievable to me that we are disregarding the fact that Clinton won California and New York, two states that will be much more important in November than Iowa and South Carolina.

Did anyone notice the people in the crowd during the speeches last night? Hillary's crowd was full of AFSCME and AFT members. Although I'm sure there were others in the crowd at Obama's rally, I could not get past the three white men directly behind him in Abercrombie & Fitch gear.

It excites me that she reaches so many people who are usually counted out. A significant part of her base is working-class and Hispanic people, and I hate to see her (and consequently those people) cast to the side so easily.

Clinton supporter here.

If Clinton can "destroy Obama's campaign" then there's no way he can win against McCain. Period.

I watched both speeches last night, and from what I see, this primary process is making both candidates stronger and engaging and exciting voters.

Finally, all this talk about how the campaigning has been so nasty... Please. They're both still practically tip toeing around each other, they might as well hold hands and skip. It's politics; it's campaigning. It matters how they face these things that come up, and yeah, it's important to see Obama take some heat and see how he responds and works through it.

Obviously, we already know how Hillary weathers the storm.

Finally, I find it way difficult to truly believe that Hillary or Obama's supporters won't vote for the other when it comes down to it. I'm not buying that from true Democrat.

"I have a really hard time believing that so many people would be talking about how she is destroying the Democratic Party, if she weren't Hillary Clinton."

Were you born in the last 4 years or have you just never paid attention to the rhetoric surrounding national elections, because this stuff is typical, especially in such a contested and negative race. In other words, I'm pretty sure people would be saying the same thing about any candidate in her position.

"How can we so easily count out a candidate who won by ten points last night?"

For many reasons; first, and most importantly, because the big picture is what matters and the big picture looks bad for Clinton. 2nd, because Clinton's been the favorite in PA since they started polling, and she was favored consistently by 20+ points until a few weeks ago, which is impressive since 12% of PA democrats who voted for her said their vote for Hillary was RACE motivated. Also, because in order to not divide the party on super delegates, she probably needed more like a 20% victory in PA, and she got half of that, making it that much more difficult for her to win by doing anything but twisting the arms of the political elite with super delegate votes. Why is that hard for you to wrap your head around? I guess cognitive dissonance can quickly wreck an accurate assessment of reality.

Clinton can't destroy Obama's campaign, but if you don't think this campaign is particularly negaitve, you're missing some important bits.

Anyway, to you last point, have you heard of identity politics or these people called moderates?

Dio -

I'm moderate, and I'll vote for Obama if he's the Democratic nominee.

But I won't be skipping to the polls like I would if I was going to vote for Clinton. ;)

The assertion that Obama voters who wouldn't vote for Hillary are voting for him for the wrong reasons is laughable. Finding his character supportable and hers unsupportable is not a "wrong" reason. Finding his history more favorable or even simply more palatable than hers is not a "wrong" reason.

The divisiveness of this protracted campaign is tearing the democrats apart. The only good thing - and I say this as a Pennsylvanian and a woman of color who has little naivety about the belief system of the people around her - is that it is exposing the seamy, sleazy underbelly of racism that this country has been able to keep hidden for far too long. When 12% of PA Clinton voters admit that race played a role in their vote? It makes it clear that the notions of liberalism that so many progressives want to cling to are tissue-thin lies.

No. I grew up in a red area

It's showing.

I've lived several years in a very liberal area

It's not showing.

After following both campaigns there's been a distinct negative pattern emerging in the behavior on the part of the supporters of each candidate: belittling, patronizing dismissive-ness from the Clinton camp, & outright sexist assholery out of Obama supporters. Neither modes of behavior are doing either candidate any favours.

Shorter Dio, rileystclair, et. all: Clinton won the battle last night. But she's losing the war. & losing it very badly. By badly I mean she's made a complete Dog's Breakfast of a Gong-Show Operation out of a nomination that she could've owned from start to finish. What's been making this trainwreck painful to watch is that it's a case of Watching Someone Smarter Than Most Say & Do Really Stupid Things.

smartpatrol - agreed.

kspitz - the california/ny vs south carolina/iowa analogy isn't apt because this race isn't clinton vs. mccain or obama vs. mccain. it's clinton vs. obama. just because he lost some big dem states to another dem doesn't mean that he would lose them to a republican.

I am an Obama supporter, however I would definitely vote for Senator Clinton in November. Hell, I'll knock on doors and make phone calls, all that.

I do want to say that yes, she did defeat Obama in Pennsylvania. However, there needs to be a serious evaluation of her chances at the nomination. She is still down 140 pledged delegates. And before anyone tries to claim that the Democratic Party rules are not fair, ask yourself these two questions:

Who made these rules?
Which former President benefitted from the rules as they stand?

Yes, these rules were the product of the Democratic National Committee, which was dominated by friends of Bill Clinton.
If there is any doubt about the loyalty the DNC has for the Clintons, look at the list of Hillary's superdelegates. Notice how many more of them have endorsed her over Obama.

Her win of PA netted her 10 more delegates than Obama. Her win of Ohio netted her 7 more delegates than Obama. Therefore, she only gained 17 delegates.

http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml

When Obama won Virginia on February 12, he gained 25 delegates on Clinton. Not just Virginia, either. Here is a list of the states where Obama beat Clinton by 17 or more:
Washington, Colorado, Goergia, Illinois, South Carolina.

Some of Hillary's surrogates say that these states "don't count" because they are not "big" states. The only reason she is making that argument is because she is losing the delegate battle. THAT is how the process works. Her Husband and their friends in the DNC MADE the process, and he WON twice with it. So it's a little disingenuous to blame the process.

And let's get real - Obama won Illinois. Does that mean Clinton will lose it against McCain? No freaking way. She will crush him there (as will Obama).
Clinton won Pennsylvania. Will Obama now lose the state with the most effective political machine this side of Chicago? Um, no.

BOTH Clinton or Obama would EASILY take McCain down, because his turn in the media grinder has not even started yet. And he's still only tied with both of them!

So to sum up, Clinton has literally no mathematical shot to win the nomination on delegates, but if the superdelegates choose her, well, that is how it goes - I just hope she tries to stay classy instead of tearing Obama down.
And Obama needs to choose a woman as a running mate - but not Clinton. Why? Because Clinton's legislative skills will be valuable at shepherding his agenda through congress, and we need her in the Senate.

Obama / Sebelius '08!

The people saying that Clinton is hurting the party are really just Obama supporters who don't want her to win. I think it's an utterly manipulative and childish tactic on their part, especially considering the fact that the race is still so close.
It's also really irritating that people perpetually assume that being in your 20's must mean that your an Obama supporter. I'm 23, and I have been supporting Hillary since the beginning of the race.

The people saying that Hillary Clinton is hurting the democratic party by staying in the race are just Obama supporters who don't want her to win. Frankly, I think this tactic is manipulative and childish. (I'm not saying that all Obama supporters are doing this)
It's also irritating to perpetually be told that I must be supporting Obama because I'm 23. I'm not. I've been supporting Hillary Clinton since the beginning of the race.

P.S. Did anyone see the girl on the Daily Show Tuesday night that said "When Barack Obama speaks, I can feel my heart speaking through him" ? It was really creepy.

Sorry bout the double comment.

Funny, I thought it was a good thing if everyone got the chance to vote. If I were a Republican, I'd be pissed because the candidate was already chosen well before my state voted. As a Dem, my vote may go to the losing candidate, but at least I got to vote.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/the-daily-show-the-long-flat-seemingly-endless-bataan-death-march-to-the-white-house/

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night:

"It was in this city that our founders declared America’s independence and our permanent mission to form a more perfect union. Neither Senator Obama nor I nor many of you were fully included in that vision, but we've been blessed by men and women in each generation who saw America not as it is, but as it could and should be. The abolitionists and the suffragists, the progressives and the union members, the civil rights leaders, all those who marched, protested and risked their lives because they looked into their children's eyes and saw the promise of a better future. Because of them, I grew up taking for granted that women could vote."
"Because of them, my daughter grew up taking for granted that children of all colors could attend school together. And because of them and because of you, this next generation will grow up taking for granted that a woman or an African American can be the president of the United States of America."

*sigh* ... This Canadian desperately wants to vote for this woman. Please know how incredible it is that you have that chance.

Reminds me of a comment I heard recently: "I don't even understand how Hillary became a Senator. Like, would you elect a senator who wasn't even FROM that state?" And I thought, "well, apparently the folks of New York did just that." And the same can be said for the rest of Clinton's wins. People EVERYWHERE are voting for her in huge numbers. Preemptively saying that she's not going to win only serves to marginalize the millions who have already cast their vote for her. They're not being bribed or held at gun point. They really genuinely like her and to ignore that is simple-minded. The same can be said for Obama. I don't see what the point in speculation is at this juncture.

So many of these comments make me so sad - and are the driving force behind why I haven't been reading here very often of late.

1) If Obama has associations with terrorists, radical/racist/anti-American pastors, and other issues that make him vulnerable it is not HILLARYs fault nor is it McCain or any other republican's fault. These things should be pointed out, they are real issues, and no candidate has ever gotten the ride Obama has gotten up until a week or so ago. I am so sick of Hillary being blamed when something negative comes out about Obama.

2) How the heck is letting every state weigh in on their beliefs a bad thing? I don't care if you are sick of it, you can walk away from the television but I just spent the last week in PA and those people were so thrilled to be given a chance to express their thoughts and cast their vote on who they want to represent them. That's what this is all about, I thought.

3) Calling HRC a right wing/status quo candidate is just plain ignorant. You might not like/agree with her but that is the last thing she is. Please actually learn a little bit about this woman and read her website for her positions and propositions and solutions and listen to her speak more than just the Keith Olberman hate-bites.

God forbid she have support and not just bow out to a man with a slim lead in delegates. It's still a virtual tie - neither can reach the necessary pledged delegates - so its disgusting that she would be expected to bow out to protect Obama (he's a big boy!) and abandon her strong supporters.

You say racism, I say sexism, and we all dance in a circle...

"The assertion that Obama voters who wouldn't vote for Hillary are voting for him for the wrong reasons is laughable. Finding his character supportable and hers unsupportable is not a "wrong" reason. Finding his history more favorable or even simply more palatable than hers is not a "wrong" reason."

It's not at all laughable, because no matter what issue you care about, if you're an Obama supporter Hillary will come closer to Obama than McCain will. There is no logical reason to support Obama>McCain>Clinton, unless you're a misogynist. Don't like racism? McCain will make it worse than Hillary. Don't like big business? McCain will make it worse than Hillary? Don't like the war? McCain will make it worse than Hillary. Etc. etc.

A President's job is to pass legislation, not to make you feel warm and fuzzy when you turn on your t.v. (And even so, I'd be majorly creeped out at the thought of a supposedly liberal person feeling fuzzier over McCain than Hillary)

Smartpatrol:
Perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I /want/ McCain to win. God no. I am saying, that when you consider that about 50% of the country voted for George W. and McCain has very much the same policies, that when you consider that for the past couple decades about 50% of the population has supported the more conservative candidate, that when you look at /current freaking poll numbers/ McCain /obviously/ has a chance at the presidency, whether he's running against McCain or Clinton. For you to think otherwise, based solely on the evidence that you personally are inspired by Obama, is a bit nuts...

Kate 21 raises an interesting question I think, at least for me.

For those of you who think Clinton should drop out b/c she's hurting Obama and the party, ask yourselves this:
If Obama was Obama, and Clinton was Clinton, exactly as they are now, except that Clinton was the one with the lead, would you accuse Obama of tearing apart Clinton? Would you accuse him of hurting the party?

Or do you think that the tendency to accuse Clinton of these things is also fueled by a general perception of her as having a malicious personality, as portrayed by the bits and pieces of her person we know as is filtered through the media...?

I'd love some responses to this one...

It's not at all laughable, because no matter what issue you care about, if you're an Obama supporter Hillary will come closer to Obama than McCain will.

Politically yes, but that's not the only consideration I make when I vote. And notice that I said nothing about voting for McCain. If my options, come November, are Clinton and McCain, I will not vote for a president.

And yes, if Obama were running a negative campaign, if Obama surrogates were making as many offensive personal attacks, if his speeches and his wife's speeches were full of sexist dogwhistles, if he were $10 million dollars in debt, if he were cosying up to the Richard Mellon Scaife-types to get endorsements (his only "major" paper endorsement in a huge state), if one of his most vaunted policies had a big "gotcha" in the middle that would hurt some of the most vulnerable Americans, then damned right I'd be saying that he needs to sit the hell down, shut up and stop.

But that's not the case, is it?

Kate 21 - YES! Thank you for saying what so many of us are thinking. It can be rather intimidating when a flood of anti-Hillary and pro-Obama posts are made. Your voice is much appreciated by myself and many others. Thank you.