I'm happy. It makes me wonder if the era of Rovian politics is coming to an end. All the negative stuff Obama had thrown at him in the last few weeks and he still came out on top.

I also liked both of their speeches last night. His was moving, hers was gracious and positive.

I felt kind of bad for Hilary last night, during her post-primary speech. She knew she was grasping at straws when she referred to her 1.6% victory in Indiana as "the tiebreaker" and claimed an overall victory for the night, despite that margin representing a difference of two delegates at the most, but she had to overestimate the significance of the win to her audience and the country at large anyway for the number of reasons she didn't drop out before making it this far.

As for what those reasons are, I really can't say. Clearly they go beyond her desire to win the nomination, though. Maybe she's banking on using the influence and grassroots support she's gained from her powerful run as a springboard, much in the same way Howard Dean did. Maybe it's just about getting enough campaign contributions to pay back the millions of dollars she loaned to her own campaign.

But in any case, I expect her to stay on until her next expected loss, which won't be for a while. In the meantime, though, I imagine we'll see the same change in tone we saw from the Republican candidates who ran against McCain during their own final days. She'll maintain her visibility, but step back from the negative campaigning in addition to encouraging solidarity in the Democratic party.

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

Every call you made, every friend you spoke to about our campaign, every dollar you contributed made tonight's victory possible. And I couldn't be more thankful for your hard work.

Every time we've celebrated a victory, we've celebrated it together. And tonight is no exception. This victory is your victory, this campaign is your campaign, and your support has been the difference between winning and losing.

Thank you so much for making this campaign possible. Let's keep making history together.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Oddly enough, no pleas for donations from the last Clinton e-mail. Coupled with her cancellation of every media appearance she was scheduled to make today, it seems like she's laying low for the time being, perhaps until the media stops talking about her loss here and starts talking about the next vote.

In the beginning I supported Hillary becasue I thought Obama didn't have many concrete ideas or plans-- just a lot of rhetoric. This changed when I watched their interviews on the Sunday morning news programs. Hillary sounded dangerously like Bush: pretending to be a woman of the people (I mean, let's get real, she went to Yale Law), saying she's not going to trust "elitist" economists more than blue collar workers, etc. Bush has been strutting like a populist for years and his refusal to listen to professionals voicing reasonable concerns about his policies have gotten us into heaps and heaps of trouble, none the least in Iraq. I'm done with Hillary. It's a shame because when she started her campaign she was all about listening and conversation (her tag line was something like "join the conversation" right?) Now sh won't listen to anyone. I don't want another bull headed president who will do anything to be right. We have suffered through enough of that over the last 8 years.

ummmm.....Obama LOST last night. I know the biased media has spun it as a victory, but for months he was projected to win NC. He actually stated that Indiana was going to be the tie-breaker. But of course not that he lost Indiana, they won't report that.

"Coupled with her cancellation of every media appearance she was scheduled to make today, it seems like she's laying low for the time being, perhaps until the media stops talking about her loss here and starts talking about the next vote."

There were no scheduled appearances.

dedf, a win that is predicted in advance is still a win. What matters isn't the narrative attached to a state, but final tally of the votes and how that affects a candidates odds of winning the entire contest.

That said, Clinton's odds have fallen further following her loss in NC and a win in Indiana that was actually much smaller than predicted (yes, she was predicted to win Indiana in the same way Obama was predicted to win NC). Whenever you fall short of predictions, your overall odds of winning go down, and at this point they're so far in the hole that there's simply no recovering.

Also, I'll take your word for it on Clinton not having been scheduled to make any appearances.

Robos is that Indiana was the tie breaker even stated by Obama...but you would never know it with the biased media.

It was a big win for Hillary last night.

Dedf, a term like "tiebreaker" is meaningless to the primary to the primary, even when a state is cited as the tiebreaker by the opposition.

Obama and Clinton weren't tied, after all.

"With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates."

Indiana was the tiebreaker in the context of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, but in regard to the run for the nomination as a whole it's meaningless. Hilary won by 1.6%, the definition of small and a difference that accounts for two delegates in total. Two is a drop in the bucket, and hasn't made a difference in the least.

I have completely had it with the way Clinton is conducting her campaign. Even apart from attempting to have the Florida/Michigan delegates seated, with I think is pretty unconscionable, it seems clear to me that more than any policy or group of constituents Clinton cares about one thing: Hillary Clinton.

Obviously, each candidate things they are the best for the job - otherwise they wouldn't be running. But continuing to pursue her candidacy at this point - which she must know is almost certain to fail, given the delegate count - means that she does not care if Obama, her fellow democrat, loses to McCain.

In fact, it seems that she may prefer that outcome. I don't want to believe that an intelligent person would so sacrifice their country for their own political benefit, but it seems that Clinton may be banking on how much damage she can do to Obama before getting out of the race - making him more likely to lose to McCain, making her more likely (in her estimation) to win the nomination in 2012. No matter the prolonging of the war in Iraq, no matter the effects on our civil liberties or Supreme Court appointments, no matter the continued decrepitude of our health care system.

Bottom line: she cannot win, she can only damage Obama - a man she claims to support. She needs to get out of the race.

Dedf- Yeah, yeah, and Hillary said that North Carolina was a "game-changer." How'd that work out?

Obama increased the delegate margin last night. Increased the popular vote margin. Hillary's "big win" in Indiana gave her a net increase of a blip. Congrats and all, but it's over. She's got no money, she's got no discernable chance to win enough delegates, and the superdels are about to break for Obama in droves.

Biased media? She was cl-hoh-hoh-hobbered in North Carolina, and barely squeaked out a win in Indiana after declaring victory early. *She. Can't. Win.* It's over.

well....as small as guam was, obama won by seven votes, yet all over the news it was a win! lol

Also, 3-4% of total voters in the Democratic primary in Indiana were pro-McCain Republicans voting for Hilary.

That means that people who plan to vote Democrat in November support Obama more than Clinton in that state, and that Obama would have actually won if the Republican nomination was still in contention.

Not that it matters, in the end. Just as a 1.6% victory for Clinton doesn't matter, a 2% or more victory for Obama would have been similarly meaningless, at least in terms of numbers.

but it does matter to the media...if obama had won Indiana it would have been considered a huge victory....unfortunatly when it comes to Hillary it is ignored or downplayed.

I really, really, really wanted to support Hillary Clinton. I did. I wanted to be able to get behind a woman candidate for POTUS. You've no idea how much I wanted it. Edwards got my primary vote (in SC), and Obama was my second. The further she gets into the campaign, the less Clinton appeals to me. I agree with whomever said she was seeming more and more like Bush. Hell, I said a long time ago that she was my favorite Republican, but I never expected her to go all-out Republican on me. I am just not sure she can squeak out the numbers she needs to win now, and I think it's time for her to bow out and give Obama a better chance against McCain (it seems like an easy victory, but so did W in '04). At this point, any attempt by either Clinton or Obama to damage the other's reputation is simply fodder for the McCain campaign.

I'm feeling pretty happy right now, honestly, as an Obama supporter. He won NC by ~14% when it looked like it was going to be 5-10%.

Indiana would have been nice, but losing by 2% when recent polls suggested a 6-10% loss isn't so bad. (And not that anyone in the media will care, but I have to wonder if Rush Limbaugh didn't convince at least 20,000 Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton, thus giving her the win.)

So what? Hillary went to Yale. Obama went to Harvard. Bushes Sr. and Jr., Howard Dean and John Kerry went to Yale. Dukakis went to Harvard. Even Ralph Nader went to Harvard AND Princeton. How anyone can believe that any of these or any candidate (with the possible exception of Kucinich) is actually in touch with the people? Why are people consistently surprised and frustrated that their candidate isn't a more "common" person, in touch with the values and beliefs of Americans? Why is it any more egregious that Hillary plays the populist than Obama and Michelle's populism? And why oh why are we ever even fooled by it in the first place?

I turned off the election coverage on my TV a long time ago. Not that I am apathetic, but because I am so damned tired of the in-party fighting. Obama is a feminist. Clinton is a feminist. Their views differ on few things. Can't we just get this shit over with so we can start taking care of Mc[Cane]? What bothers me even more are the people who say that if either Democratic candidate does not win, they're voting for McCain. Jesus Christ, if I had hair, I'd be pulling them out.

I turned off the election coverage on my TV a long time ago. Not that I am apathetic, but because I am so damned tired of the in-party fighting. Obama is a feminist. Clinton is a feminist. Their views differ on few things. Can't we just get this shit over with so we can start taking care of Mc[Cane]? What bothers me even more are the people who say that if either Democratic candidate does not win, they're voting for McCain. Jesus Christ, if I had hair, I'd be pulling them out.

Obama is NOT a feminist. He has addressed, head-on, exactly ZERO issues that women face: poverty. job discrimination. rape. abuse. the slow, deliberate erasure of our reproductive rights. etc.

There were no scheduled appearances.

So NBC News was lying, then?

I'm incredibly disappointed.

This will be the first presidential election I'm able to vote in and with the non-stop media coverage of the democratic candidates I'm all ready sick to death of both of them. (Which I obviously the point.) While both Clinton and Obama will bring some much needed damage control and help us move a little to the left (Im wanting a big fucking leap!) or at least a bit closer to center, Im not thrilled about either one.

Truth be told I like Congressmen Kucinich a lot, but he doesn't have a the loud presence thats needed to win the vote. And where the hell did Gore go? It's a general consensus among my friends and I that if he were to jump in the race he could easily steal a good portion of youth vote with all the environmental work he's done. And also I cant help but keep a piece of my liberal heart reserved for Nadar. That's right! I admit it! Now, Im not saying he should try running... again... because ultimately he does steal votes that would otherwise go toward defeating the Republican party, but Im fond of the old fart. I would like to see a third party introduced, cause this old coin is getting awefuly rusty.

TinFoil, and what, exactly, in terms of hardcore feminist issues, has Clinton advocated? I am not adcovating for neither here, but I know this much: Obama is one of the few senators who have supported the REAL Act (Responsible Education About Life) that covers comprehensive sexual education, and Clinton has not. For me, comprehensive sex ed is a feminist issue.

When was the last time Clinton spoke about rape?

Michelle was telling young women NOT to go into the corporate world.

TinFoil: With a quick visit to Obama's website, you will find his proposals for the following: expanding hate crimes legislation; fighting job discrimination through increased enforcement by the Department of Justice, as well as making it easier for women and minorities to raise pay discrimination suits; increasing the minimum wage; providing universal early childcare; expanding the family and medical leave act; and expanding flexible work arrangements. He has also received a 100% pro choice rating from NARAL for the last three years. I could go on, but it's really not that hard to just go to the candidates' websites and read their proposals.

I watched the election coverage last night and as an Obama supporter I was excited to see him cut Hilary's leads. That said, if Hilary was the nominee I would definitely vote for her although I do not like her as much as Obama.

I am an Indiana resident so while itw as exciting to actually matter for one :) (cause let's face it, come november my vote for a democrat will not really matter) i'm still sad to see how this has played out. Obama won all the areas that generally go democrat in November while Clinton won the republican ones...which will most likely go to Mccain in november.

Also, just a side note: I live in Lake County and it's pretty common for people to register as democrats and then vote republican when it comes down to the presidential election.

Obama is NOT a feminist. He has addressed, head-on, exactly ZERO issues that women face: poverty. job discrimination. rape. abuse. the slow, deliberate erasure of our reproductive rights. etc.

I'm not sure why people say these things.

Poverty: As long ago as last summer, Obama released a specific and comprehensive $6billion plan to combat poverty. The National Review has a really great overview of it. I'd suggest checking it out.

Job discrimination: He JUST VOTED in favor of the Ledbetter discrimination act 2 weeks ago! This should still be fresh in everyone's mind.

Rape: He cosponsored Dru's Law which increases monitoring of rapists.

Abuse: He also cosponsored the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN act which provides funding to non-profits that specifically help women seeking escape from domestic violence situations as well as orgs that help combat sexual assault.

Reproductive rights: Planned Parenthood has given him a 100% voting record, and he's quoted as saying: "A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women."

tinfoil I agree with you that Obama is not a feminist.

*And when I say the National Review has a great article, I mean simply that they give a decent overview of the plan. And then they say they hate it. And when the National Review hates something, it's usually good by me.

I like this article:
mediamatters.org/columns/200804300001?f=h_column#comments_bottom_nav

You know what bothers me the most? It's all the people telling Hilary to drop out for the good of the Democratic cause.

First, what kind of person would she be to so easily compromise her intentions for the presidency? You just can't do that.

Secondly, this makes me think of all the other times a woman is asked to put aside her ambitions for the good of something else. On an individual level, we put aside our careers for the welfare of our families; in a larger level, women's rights get put aside in the fight for civil rights.

I don't think it's necessary to narrow it down to 2 nominees at this point, I don't feel it weakens the democractic party (I mean WTF. There have been presidential races where we've had 3 contenders up until November, so why is it important now?)

I've also wondered if Clinton has to be that much better than Obama and McCain, the way so many of us have to out in the workforce, only in order to justify her right to be there?

Clinton started with an advantage over Obama, Lotus. Everyone supported her, nobody knew who he was, and it seemed like nothing could stop her. Obama's the one who had to work harder, first to get his name out there and earn the money to even compete and later to overcome the woman who once was the presumptive nominee.

That said, I agree that she shouldn't drop out before she's ready to do so. My only hope is that she'll refrain from negative campaigning from here on, a practice that undeniably DOES harm the Democratic party.

Where do people draw the conclusion that she is negative is obama is not? I see him as being more negative than her.

Can we just call the next election thread "Repetitive Dead-Ender Open Mic Night"?

Also, what's this about "elitist"? All of the presidential nominees in recent history had above-average socio-economic status and/or opportunities.

To me, "elitist" has less to do with your bank account and your diplomas, and more to do with where your concerns and values are.

I don't agree dedf, but I don't think the point is worth arguing because it doesn't matter if Obama is more negative than Clinton, at this point. She isn't going to be the nominee, barring extraordinary circumstances, and so public opinion of her will have no bearing on the Democratic Party's chances in November.

He most likely will be the nominee, meanwhile, and so negative campaigning against him from Hilary, who reaches voters McCain cannot and crafts the public image of Obama in a way McCain cannot, does stand to have a negative effect on the party's odds of winning.

That's why, regardless of whether or not she continues on, it would be to the benefit of the party if she changes her tactics a bit.

"You know what bothers me the most? It's all the people telling Hilary to drop out for the good of the Democratic cause...think of all the other times a woman is asked to put aside her ambitions"

I hear you, Lotus, and I think women are often asked to put themselves second. However, I totally disagree with your read on this situation. In elections, politicians are *often* asked to step down when the time comes. When it is obvious that the big fights are done and one candidate has lost, it does not compromise their integrity, character or their courage to step down. It is done historically, John Edwards saw the writing on the wall and stepped aside when it was obvious that he wasn't going to win. Clinton had a real shot at this, but the big fights are done now, and Obama has come out on top. As for McCain, Having 3 candidates late in the game always strengthens the third one who has suffered fewer recent public blows.

It is time for Clinton to step down, *endorse Obama*, and get on to the fight with McCain, because the presidency isn't in the bag yet, but I believe that the nomination really is.

I don't like any of the candidates for president this year. It seems every presidential election, the candidates get worse and worse. As of now, I cannot say who I support. I don't like McCain, Clinton or Obama.

So sad....

I really wanted Edwards to be on top...well, maybe in the next 4 years...sigh

Edwards should be Hillary's VP.

"When it is obvious that the big fights are done and one candidate has lost, it does not compromise their integrity, character or their courage to step down"

Give me a break! LOL! I will support her in taking it to convention.

I was really hoping Obama would take both, even though odds were against him in Indiana. Don't get me wrong, if Hillary got the nomination, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, but that's just not going to happen. The continuing negative campaigning is so destructive and causing so much divisiveness in each camp.

The rank and file...us...are so invested in their "one true candidate" that some are becoming blinded to the fact that either one of them would be a great improvement over what we have. We need to be able to set aside the negativity and throw our support behind EITHER candidate. It just kills me to read that there are people from both camps that say they will vote for McCain before voting for the opposing democrat candidate. It boggles my mind. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!

So, one way or another, this needs to be sorted out so we can heal the divisions that seem to be getting wider.

Do you support giving the nomination to Hilary, even if she goes into the convention in second place?