gee, CPJ, when you explain it like that, it sounds like Clinton has to be crazy to keep going. But you are just counting delegates. What about the popular vote? Huh, what? Oh he's ahead in that also. Yeah, well, what about money raising? Oh...ahead in that too. But, but..how about the number of states won? Oh, him again.
You may be right, Clinton needs a big hand...pushing her out the door.

Considering that CaPJ is a well known Obama supporter, his opinion that Clinton should just drop out is hardly surprising.

How patently unfair can you be!(TM) You absolutely forget FL and MI. Clinton should be awarded the 73 delegates she earned in MI. Obama should get none(TM). Clinton should get the 106 delegates she earned in FL. Obama should get none(TM). Although he secured 84 delegates in Florida, he shouldn't get them because those people voted the wrong way.

What does that do to your math, Mr. smarty CaCa Pol Junkie? Huh!? Why can't you just be fair to Hillary? Add in the 179 delegates Hillary should get from FL and MI. Remember, Obama doesn't get the FL delegates because he is a bad man(TM).

Considering that CaPJ is a well known Obama supporter, his opinion that Clinton should just drop out is hardly surprising.

Amen to that! I, for one, am tired of CaCa Pol Junkie's sexism, misogyny and unfair attitude towards Hillary. Where is the moderator? If CaCa Pol Junkie doesn't proclaim Hillary as the winner real soon I am going to sue!

ah, yes- the math. which conveniently ignores the fact that neither candidate can win without superdelegates, and neither yet has enough superdelegates to win. which would seem to indicate that the race isn't over. how sad that people willingly continue to participate in democracy.

What a sad, sad state the Obamabots are in....

They are screaming for Hillary to get out.

Why? The primary season hasn't yet played itself completely out.

CA Pol Junkie, you can divine whatever numbers you want. Nothing of what you put down is going to have meaning. Why?

Because the bottom baseline is this:

a) the primary season has to play out to the end. Let's see where things are at after all things are done. (Attempting to divine anything before that, is just wishful thinking.)

b) Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated. How that will be done, is not yet completely determined. (Obama-anians are reluctant to consider this.)

c) Super delegates, or indeed, even the delegates themselves, are not obligated to stick with anyone after the first ballot (I think I may have that correct--please correct me if I am wrong on this aspect).

d) This is going to the Convention, despite what Obamabots want, or Howard Dean wants.

e) Any attempt at statistical analysis without making accommodation for all factors in play (including more political problems for Obama--courtesy of his "new" pastor Otis Moss--read this at this URL link (yes, it's World Net Daily, but it's in the most part based on an NPR interview Michelle Noris had with Moss:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63153

(And addditionally don't forget the matastasizing Rezko scandal), the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations, the decision by John Edwards as to whom he will let his pledged delegates to, and so on--you haven't factored that stuff in, CA Pol Junkie), just gives concreteness to the old adage of computerizing data--GIGO (Garbage In, [computerized] Garbage Out).

This is supposed to go to the Convention. And it will. They do have rules in place to handle just such a situation. The Democratic Party will be strengthened as a result. And it will also show the Republican-leaning Obamabots in their true stripes come Convention time.

I think this is an exciting time. And like I said before, Hillary, Bill and Chelsea campaigning like they are will significantly affect the outcomes in all states that are left.

I don't care what the "MoDo" (Marueen Dowd) brigade says (NYTimes et al). I don't care what HuffingtonPost publishes (remember, she used to be a Rethuglican, an ardent one at that--and I most certainly see Republican-style motifs all over that website).

The only thing that matters is what the record says Wednesday morning of next week as to where things stand for North Carolina, and Indiana at that time.

And then things move on to the next slate of state primaries.

So T2 and CA Pol Junkie, you can say whatever you want. You can "Create Your Own Reality," but it isn't the factual reality.

Big Daddy Got The Numberzzzz!

Why won't the stupid bitch quit? Cal Pol Junkie says SHE CAN'T WIN!!!! And he is very serious and unbiased. He is the our white male authority figure and he is the prezident of teh math club!

I have a question for Michelle Obama, and since she is not here, for CA Pol Junkie:

Just a couple of days ago, Michelle claimed in an interview that Obama is the underdog in this race. If Obama is the underdog, why do his superdelegates and supporters continuously ask for Clinton to drop out?

Over to you.

...but it isn't the factual reality.

Amen to that!(TM)

I get so Pig Biting Mad(TM) when people try to impose some altered reality related to mathematics or facts on a political discussion.

He is the our white male authority figure and he is the prezident of teh math club!

Amen to that!(TM) Clinton should get all the delegates from FL and MI and Obama gets none! It's the only fair(TM) way to do it! What the hell are rules for if they aren't to be broken?

I have a question for Michelle Obama, and since she is not here, for CA Pol Junkie:

You've been served, bee-atch(TM)! Show us if you're as telepathic as you claim to be, Mr. Great Big Obammy-whammy-robo-anian-bot White Male Authority Nostradamus Cracker(TM)!

oh noes, teh math! lol

leave Hillary alone! just leave her alone! lol

So how does Obama reach the magic number of 2209? He cannot.

now TA, be nice or Santy Claus won't bring you any presents.

So how does Obama reach the magic number of 2209? He cannot.

So, where is your response to that, Mr. CaCa Pol Junkie? Mi and FL are why you CAN'T respond! Without them the Magic number is 2024...SNAP(TM)!

I'll say it again. Give Hillary her delegates from FL and MI and Obama gets none(TM)! How's that for "MATH"(TM)? And using your own fancy math, Hillary has the lead! Your MAGIC numbers show Hillary with a -130 delegate disadvantage. All I have to do is take the square-root of -136, remove the negative with i, square it and now Hillary has an i130 delegate lead! Take that, mathematicians!

You Obama-bots are soooooo easy(TM)!

Say it with me my fellow....and female...Hillary supporters! Hillarys in the lead with i130! Eye-130! Eye-130! Eye-130(TM)!

Considering that CaPJ is a well known Obama supporter, his opinion that Clinton should just drop out is hardly surprising. - jwrjr

I did not, and have not, called for Clinton to drop out. She is welcome to continue the race as long as she likes and advocate for herself and her issues. I have called on her to run a positive race, however, since short of a literal or political meteor strike Obama will be the nominee.

ah, yes- the math. which conveniently ignores the fact that neither candidate can win without superdelegates, and neither yet has enough superdelegates to win. - Turkana

Actually, the math in this post is all about the super delegates. Even under an extremely rosy scenario for Clinton, she'd need 2/3 of the remaining super delegates to win while they are more inclined to choose Obama.

lord lord please end this nightmare we call democracy..our man barry is clinging on for dear life and if that mean ole hillary clinton ..just keeps on fighting..our man barry just might have to let go of the lifeboat...please please please ..pretty please..it's getting way to close for comfort we don't like it one bit..tues..big day boys and girls..

capj,

whatever they are "inclined" to do, until enough have declared for obama, we must assume they are actually "inclined" to wait for more results before making up their minds. or else they already would have.

The Obama team analysis ignores Florida and Michigan. Just adding the two states to the mix will raise the number needed to be nominated from 2025 to 2025 plus 1/2 of the added delegates. That number will be harder for Obama to achieve and will make his nomination less inevitable.

Troubled American,

They are screaming for Hillary to get out.

Not me.

a) the primary season has to play out to the end. Let's see where things are at after all things are done. (Attempting to divine anything before that, is just wishful thinking.)

We actually have a very good idea how things will play out to the end. The outcomes of the primaries are not random. Barack Obama's leaked spreadsheet has been very accurate with its predictions even months in advance.

b) Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated. How that will be done, is not yet completely determined. (Obama-anians are reluctant to consider this.)

They'll be seated after Clinton concedes, so that they won't decide the nominee.

c) Super delegates, or indeed, even the delegates themselves, are not obligated to stick with anyone after the first ballot (I think I may have that correct--please correct me if I am wrong on this aspect).

The odds are pretty small that Obama and Clinton will be so closely divided that Edwards' 19 delegates will play a role. Supers are not obligated to vote for anyone.

d) This is going to the Convention, despite what Obamabots want, or Howard Dean wants.

If it does, Clinton will lose every super delegate pledged to her. The DNC will not tolerate this going on to the convention.

e) Any attempt at statistical analysis without making accommodation for all factors in play

87% of the people have already voted. There just aren't many factors left and they would need to be massive to make a difference.

I think this is an exciting time. And like I said before, Hillary, Bill and Chelsea campaigning like they are will significantly affect the outcomes in all states that are left.

The outcomes of the races were known pretty well a long time ago. With both campaigns devoting the necessary resources, the campaigning only shifts things a few points in either direction.

The only thing that matters is what the record says Wednesday morning of next week as to where things stand for North Carolina, and Indiana at that time.

Obama is likely to win NC by at least 10 points; Clinton will probably win Indiana in single digits; the delegate split will be close, but Obama is likely to come out with a few more. The details, including who actually wins the states, don't matter.

And then things move on to the next slate of state primaries.

Yeah, but the rest of the voting is largely formality at this point.

So T2 and CA Pol Junkie, you can say whatever you want. You can "Create Your Own Reality," but it isn't the factual reality.

The nominee will be chosen by the delegates. That's reality.

Just a couple of days ago, Michelle claimed in an interview that Obama is the underdog in this race. If Obama is the underdog, why do his superdelegates and supporters continuously ask for Clinton to drop out? - ghost2

I don't know what Michelle said, but Obama is not currently the underdog, but rather the prohibitive favorite. He absolutely was the underdog at the beginning of the campaign because Clinton started with huge advantages including 100% name recognition, being married to a former president under whom America was prosperous, massive fund raising, and institutional support.

The people asking Clinton to drop out are doing so because she's running a negative and futile campaign.

OOoooo Big Daddy Teh Math Club Preznident is MAD NOW! YOU MUST NOT CRITICIZE MR. NUMBERS! He is a Very Serious Person and Understands The Numbers unlike you Clinton supporters who must lay down and die! The Precious must be given his rightful crown!

Michigan and Florida broke The Roooolz! WAAA!

i know it and you know it... not that any naive one of you would for the life of you admit it...reverend wright and the sf comments have changed the dyamics of this race..the only real question is how much..and can he hang on?..that is a fact...if we were at haltime and not in the 4th quarter..he'd be done..lets see what hillary can do with the tme remaining time..watch your nails kiddies

So how does Obama reach the magic number of 2209? He cannot. - MarkL

The magic number is 2,024. Michigan and Florida have zero delegates. They will only have delegates after the race has been decided and the magic number is a moot point.

whatever they are "inclined" to do, until enough have declared for obama, we must assume they are actually "inclined" to wait for more results before making up their minds. or else they already would have. - Turkana

Most super delegates have apparently already decided whom to support, but they have not declared it. There are various reasons for doing this, including maintaining neutrality and/or not burning bridges with people who favor the other candidate. The safe thing for alot of them is to just support whoever is the winner.

one of the varying reasons is electability

dennis,
i know it and you know it... not that any naive one of you would for the life of you admit it...reverend wright and the sf comments have changed the dyamics of this race..the only real question is how much

"Not much" is the answer. Wright is quite the two bit scandal on the political scale. After all, it isn't something the candidate himself even said or did. It can make the polls move a bit in the short term with low information voters, but Obama swung back the first time Wright appeared and he'll swing back this time as well.

..and can he hang on?..that is a fact...if we were at haltime and not in the 4th quarter..he'd be done..lets see what hillary can do with the tme remaining time..watch your nails kiddies

Obama could pretty much crawl over the finish line if he had to.

he may have to..with somebody dragging him

one of the varying reasons is electability

Obviously you missed the Colbert Report discussion of electability. There's no reason to think either isn't electable, and there's no way of knowing who is more electable. General election polling isn't at all reliable this far out, and the polls swing pretty wildly.

Damn. Here I'd been for Clinton all this time, and no one had told me she was a hopeless cause. Guess we'll have to pack in our tent and go home.

Man, who will make the millions of phone calls to break the news?

there is an awful lot of nuance and mystery as to how a 20 yr friendship and religious affilation..could turn on a dime..regardless of man child like and hollow explanations there are..it's odd..and it say it hasn't had a major impact is just plain silly

Damn. Here I'd been for Clinton all this time, and no one had told me she was a hopeless cause. Guess we'll have to pack in our tent and go home.

Heck, I voted for Dean after his campaign had been suspended. There's nothing wrong with voting for who you want - just don't have expectations of your candidate winning.

Clinton wasn't a hopeless cause until the string of losses in February, Wisconsin in particular. After that, only a spectacular showing in Texas / Ohio could have given her any real shot.

i wasn't aware you had such telepathic powers into what the undeclared superdelegates have apparently decided. i know it's silly, but when they declare themselves undecided, i tend to assume they're undecided. i tend to think that when they've made their final decisions, they'll say so. but i'm not telepathic, so what would i know?

there is an awful lot of nuance and mystery as to how a 20 yr friendship and religious affilation..could turn on a dime

Wright kicked Obama in the teeth a week ago - that would do it.

why..thats what i want to know

maybe because obama is a hypocrite and wright called him on it

i wasn't aware you had such telepathic powers into what the undeclared superdelegates have apparently decided. i know it's silly, but when they declare themselves undecided, i tend to assume they're undecided. i tend to think that when they've made their final decisions, they'll say so. but i'm not telepathic, so what would i know? - Turkana

I'm not actually telepathic, I just read.

"The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "They’re just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day."

In other words, those elected supers have their preference, but they see a net negative for themselves if they take sides.

Obama may or may not be the nominee-but given the fact he is an empty suit who only does well when coddled by the media, it is very unlikely he will ever be President.

Not that Obamabots care-they'll just blame the loss on Hillary, and go on feeling superior because they recognized The Liberal Messiah that most Democratic voters (those poor "low-information" fools) failed to see. Even if in this case their Messiah doesn't rise from the dead.

"Man, who will make the millions of phone calls to break the news?"
well, I guess the same person who'll call the Obama millions if the miracle all Clintonia is counting on happens. But Obama is not counting on miracles....he counting votes.

It's all about the math!!! Not electability, not the remaining nine contests - the math!
Yesterday MSNBC ran a ticker-tape below an afternoon program that read "A vote for Clinton is a vote for the process to continue and a vote for the process to continue is a vote for John McCain."

Desperate. Poor Kos jumped the shark AGAIN when he claimed yesterday that Hillary said in the Fox interview about her wealth -God bless us ( instead of God blessed us.)

I kinda sorta feel sorry for them. They know they're losing.

I do not know what kind of reception you expect to get with a that blog post title. It is very inflammatory and sneers at Clinton supporters as well as all of the voters who have not yet cast a ballot.

It is taunting, juvenile and arrogant.

And so typical of the Obama supporters that i read on the internet.

Mebbe, but if you are correct that it's hopeless, HOPELESS, I say!, then why don't the remaining superdelegates just jump on Obama's wagon and call it a day?
I'll tell you why. It's because they haven't seen him breakaway yet. They see the trend in Hillary's direction. And depending on who wins May 6, the rest of them are ready to follow the leader. Not the leader in pledged delegates; the *electable* leader.
FWIW, I'm guessing that Obama doesn't have too many more SD's in his arsenal. he's pulling out all of the stops right now. What he needs is someone like Edwards to rescue him. Ain't gunna happen.
So, we shall see what happens Tuesday. If he loses Indiana and finishes weakly in NC, he's in BIG trouble.

>But Obama is not counting on miracles....he counting votes.

Like FL and MI...

yes, and we can count on mccaskill's objectivity. but even if she's right, and they're waiting for others to act, what happens if others don't act? what happens if they act in an unexpectedly contrary manner? they apparently didn't have the guts to declare for obama when he had the wind in his sails, but they will when clinton does? makes sense. or something.

Desperate. Poor Kos jumped the shark AGAIN when he claimed yesterday that Hillary said in the Fox interview about her wealth -God bless us ( instead of God blessed us.)

Actually, I think Howard Wolfson was incorrect with his correction. She clearly said, "...God bless us...", which, in the context of the pathetic whining being done by O'Reilly about his precious money being taken from him, was perfectly appropriate.

But regardless, Markos' nasty little post on the issue was pretty sad. Concluding, "Those of you who aren't rich, it's because God hates you." Classy. Clearly, Obama inspired.

CA Pol Junkie,

You can't honestly quote Claire McCaskill, and just assume there is no spin there. She does have a horse in this race, you know. She says, "The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing... "

Logical conclusion 1: She could have talked to 3 superdelegates, and 2 of them were committed. Her statement would still be accurate.

Logical conclusion 2: In that statement, she doesn't specify who they support. Sure, you can read that perhaps they mostly support Obama. But she never said that. So it's possible that the 2 (or whatever the number) delegates that were committed were for Clinton.

Logical conclusion 3: Claire could have talked to 3 superdelegates, and one was for Clinton, one for Obama, and one undecided. Her statement would still be accurate.

Aside about the earlier comment: Michelle said that two days ago on an interview (but can't find google link). Obama also said in the interview with FOX that "we have always been the underdog" (which normally indicates that it is still the case)

tdraicer, pardon me, I should have said "he's counting legitimate delegates".

Of course "legitimate delegates" are ultimately whatever delegates the Convention decides to count.

Will Obama get his trophy? We'll see. He certainly won't win the GE.

I think the point of CaPol's post is simply that Clinton is now very unlikely to get the nomination in any real way according to the rules the Dem. party has in place this year.

One commenter said that if Obama doesn't win Ind. and kill in N.C. he is in " big trouble"

I feel the big trouble is not that he will loose the nomination, the math is too daunting for her, but that any further poor showing in the hunt for the nomination will hurt a bit in the general.

I think there will come a time very soon where she is no longer fighting for the nomination but just to be a spoiler and that will be bad for our chances in November.

Up until now, I have come around to the conclusion that the fight has been good for Obama and helps him in the general but even I feel that to cont. to drag it out much longer will start to hurt us. (us democrats)

If she tries to drag this much further than the next week or so I think the supers will begin to come over to Obama big time and they will end it.

I think it would be better for her legacy and for the party if she was the one that did it and not the supers.

Eric in Austin

PS I also think Bill Richardson will get the nod for VEEP

I'll assume that any Obama supporters who were concerned over the activities of WVWV will be expressing suitable outrage over this regardless of whether or not it turns out that anyone remotely ever associated with Barack Obama or his campaign is determined to have had anything whatsoever to do with it or with the organization that was distributing it.

Seeing as it smacks of 'politics as usual' and we all know what the Obama people think about that.

jmac,
It's all about the math!!! Not electability, not the remaining nine contests - the math!

Math is what is used when adding up the delegates. Both candidates are electable, not just whichever candidate anyone supports.

Yesterday MSNBC ran a ticker-tape below an afternoon program that read "A vote for Clinton is a vote for the process to continue and a vote for the process to continue is a vote for John McCain."

That looks like a paraphrase of the statement Joe Andrew made announcing switching his support from Clinton to Obama.

Desperate. Poor Kos jumped the shark AGAIN when he claimed yesterday that Hillary said in the Fox interview about her wealth -God bless us ( instead of God blessed us.)

Not that this isn't silly season politics, but did you listen to it? It's "bless".

You bet I (as an Obama supporter) will denounce it. Any thing that misleads is wrong.

Isn't it fairly common to send out sample ballots by both sides that are marked the way they feel they should be with their preferred candidate?

If so this doesn't seem way off base. The bottom is marked that it was paid for by a PAC but probably needs more to be clear. The difference snark is that the WVWV sent out something that would confuse i.e. suppress votes. Much more serious in my opinion.

Nice try though Eric in Austin

So snark, you coming to Joe Andrew's defense after Clinton team member Howard Wolfsen said, "I don't think he's from Indiana?"

Don't want any distortions if you know what I mean.

The difference snark is that the WVWV sent out something that would confuse i.e. suppress votes.

How would it suppress votes? If you believe you're registered to vote and you receive a phone call telling you that a pack with a voter registration form will be mailed to you so you can register would you just assume that you aren't registered and not show up at your polling place on election day? Not me.

Point is, the presumption with WVWV was that this was a deliberate attempt at something illegal. Rather than simply people, interested in getting as many people as possible involved in the election process, making dumb mistakes.

The desire, on both sides, to slam the other guy is out of control. That was my point.

Mebbe, but if you are correct that it's hopeless, HOPELESS, I say!, then why don't the remaining superdelegates just jump on Obama's wagon and call it a day? I'll tell you why. It's because they haven't seen him breakaway yet. They see the trend in Hillary's direction. And depending on who wins May 6, the rest of them are ready to follow the leader. Not the leader in pledged delegates; the *electable* leader. - riverdaughter

Nah. They don't want to burn relationships they have. A trend in Hillary's direction doesn't mean anything after 87% of the vote is done. Here's another quote from the Politico article:

"All the low-hanging fruit has already been picked," said one Democratic Senate aide. "The rest are waiting to see who the winner is or are doing what’s in their best interests. Most of the people that are remaining just don’t want to pick the wrong side."

BTW, May 6th is very likely to be a split decision. If Obama can win 25% of the white vote in North Carolina (and he should win 35% or so according to the polls) he'll win the state. I assume Indiana will look enough like Ohio (as opposed to Wisconsin or Iowa) that Clinton will win there, although the margin should be pretty low.

ghost2,
You can't honestly quote Claire McCaskill, and just assume there is no spin there. She does have a horse in this race, you know. She says, "The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing... "

Here's another quote from the article:

Asked which way the committed-but-unannounced superdelegates are leaning, McCaskill — who has endorsed Obama — said: "James Brown would say, 'I Feel Good.'"

Any Clinton surrogates saying anything equivalent?

snark. there were sample ballots in PA with only Hilary's name on them. Sample ballots of this nature are common in elections, a political gimmic, and they can say anything on them...but they are SAMPLE, not REAL. They DON'T COUNT. Their purpose it to get votes for a favored candidate...like an eriposte article. Now if Obama's people manage to get an actual, real ballot at the polls with only his name on it, like Hillary did in Michigan, I'd think that sucks.

snark, the WVWV robocalls can depress votes because the message said people needed to fill out the forms in order to vote. You and me would head to the precinct anyway, but most voters are not as familiar with the process.

CA Pol Junkie:

You say that the DNC won't tolerate a brokered convention.

Show me some URL links to this alleged "fact". Let's see some actual quotes of someone saying "The DNC will not tolerate the electoral process going to the Convention."

Show me that, please.

And one other fact I didn't mention, that Obamabots better engrave on their foreheads.

NEITHER CANDIDATE HAS ENOUGH DELEGATES TO WIN THE NOMINATION OUTRIGHT. NOT WITH THE REGULAR DELEGATES, NOT WITH THE SUPER DELEGATES COMBINED.

Which is why I am telling you, after the first ballot, it's a....whole....new....game.

Politics doesn't run on "polls"....so quoting who is up, or who is down is meaningless. I don't care what the Chattering Class in DC says either. They were all pronouncing "Hillary is Dead...Hillary is Dead--look at the album cover!" before the PA primary.

Forget the shrillosphere, and the shnadenfreude.

This is going to be decided at the Convention. Howard Dean doesn't have the final say on that. (The DNC is made up of more than Howard Dean.)

And that you can take to the bank.

The DNC, and all the Democrats want a person who can defeat McCain. They want a person who has been completely vetted. They want a person who holds great appeal to a wide spectrum of all potential voters. Not merely people in academe, college students, and an African-American block.

They want someone who not only has concrete, detailed ideas, but also has a good clue on how to pay for those ideas.

We are not moving towards a "fair weather Presidency." The DNC knows that, and the emotionally mature delegates and super delegates know that. We are heading for the Clusterf--k Deep Sh-t Era, Post-GWB.

Obama has not shown, nor demonstrated, nor has the background to engage a complex, byzantine bureaucracy. Telling the bureuacrats "Yes, we can!" over and over again accomplishes nothing. The DNC knows this, and the emotionally mature delegates and super delegates know this.

This I think will be proved out at the Convention.

But before all of that, let's see what happens in the primaries next Tuesday.

One more thing--polls have been proven wrong before, and it happened during this election year cycle. Not a year ago, not a decade ago, not forty years ago, nothing like that. In this particular election-year cycle.

So I wouldn't be so confident CA Pol Junkie, on attempting to read something of significance into the GIGO stuff you quoted.

The other fact Obamabots forget is this:

Polls do not elect Presidential candidates. It's people going to the polls, and pulling the levers that elect the candidates. And it's the vote verifiers ultimately that elect the candidates in specific primaries.

Not any "leaked internal Obama data" or anything else.

That's all noise.

The facts will be known soundly, to all near and far by June.

So snark, you coming to Joe Andrew's defense after Clinton team member Howard Wolfsen said, "I don't think he's from Indiana?"

Sure, go read the TPM Election Central post. Be sure to read the comments. It becomes very clear very quickly that Wolfson's comment was simply misinterpreted by people oh so eager to slam a Clinton staffer. The reporter said to Wolfson that Andrew was a super delegate from Indiana. Wolfson, correctly it seems, replied that he did not believe Andrew was (a super delegate) from Indiana. Could he have been a bit clearer in his response? Sure. But even the best turn an inartful phrase now and then, no?

Don't want any distortions if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean. And I'm sorry you're so angry.

I do not know what kind of reception you expect to get with a that blog post title. It is very inflammatory and sneers at Clinton supporters as well as all of the voters who have not yet cast a ballot. - hal b.

That was not my intent, although I do not expect the post overall to please Clinton supporters. Losing stinks - I'm quite accustomed to my candidate losing and this is the first time my candidate has won - but it is important to recognize when it's time to focus the attacks on Republicans. With the title, I was putting the race in a frame of reference with which Democrats would identify. It's too little, too late.

Now if Obama's people manage to get an actual, real ballot at the polls with only his name on it, like Hillary did in Michigan, I'd think that sucks.

Are you suggesting that the Clinton campaign did something illegal in MI? Or are you just making a smear?

...but most voters are not as familiar with the process.

So we're assuming they thought they were all set to vote. Which means they thought they were registered. They get a phone call several days before the primary and they're gonna just say, "Schucks! I guess I can't vote after all!" And leave it at that? Seems to me that's insulting to people's intelligence.

But again, the point is, it's good people trying to do a good thing and unfortunately stepping over the line. But certain people are inclined to assume some nefrarious conspiracy to suppres votes.

Troubled American, even if the fight were to go to the convention, it almost certainly would not be "brokered" - the winner would be chosen on the first ballot. This is what happened in 1988 with Jesse Jackson's delegates. It is not in any super delegate's interest to see the fight go on until late August, as that would definitely hurt the nominee in November.

Howard Dean has said they need to decide in June.

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Clinton's campaign:

This past weekend, at a pre-party before the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, I spotted Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. As always--at least as always in public--he was in an upbeat mood and greeted me heartily. So, I asked, when does this end?

"June 15," he said without a nanosecond of hesitation.

Why then? I asked. The primaries finish on June 3, he noted, and after that there will be pressure on the uncommitted superdelegates (who now number about 300) to commit to one candidate or another. It should not take too long for these undecided insiders to make up their minds and declare their intentions--even if there are some who would rather not choose between the two.

snark, it doesn't have to work on everyone. Vote suppression is common in many forms because it works, although none of it literally prohibits voters from going to the polls. I agree that WVWV's stated goals are laudible and advantageous to the Democratic Party, but with this pattern occurring elsewhere and multiple states complaining about it, the best case scenario is that a firm made up of people who know what they are doing was performing work which was highly unprofessional and incompetent.

Thanks for the news item about McAuliffe, CA Pol Junkie.

But Howard Dean doesn't speak for anyone except himself.

And while McAuliffe thinks it will be decided by June 15, let's see how this plays out. It may take a bit longer than June 15.

What the DNC looks at, as well as the super delegates look at, are things like this (from the following news item from CNN, issued at 1:15 PM today):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/02/former-dnc-chairs-hillary-would-beat-mccain-today-obama-wouldnt/

Article (it's short enough to post in completeness):

".....

Former DNC chairs: Hillary would beat McCain today — Obama wouldn't

(CNN) – Seven former Democratic National Committee chairs who support Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, and the family of one who is deceased, released a letter Friday arguing that she is the candidate best-equipped to beat John McCain in November.

The letter was signed by former party leaders Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Don Fowler, Steve Grossman, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, and Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe. It was also signed by the family of the late Ron Brown, who served in the Clinton administration.

They write that “if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee.”

“Hillary has run one of the most formidable campaigns in the history of our Party,” the chairs wrote, listing Clinton’s primary season victories. “Her base of support includes women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics, middle and low income Americans, and rural, suburban and urban voters. That’s a formidable coalition tailor-made for victory in a November general election.

“…We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.”

The letter comes hours after Barack Obama’s campaign announced the endorsement of Paul Kirk, the second former DNC chair to endorse his presidential bid in two days. Kirk had been described as an Obama supporter in some campaign reports, but had not publicly stated his endorsement of the Illinois senator.

...."

It deals with political power, and political connections, and who can beat McCain in November, and who doesn't have unpleasant "surprises" keep popping up. (Wright, Rezko, a guy claiming he did cocaine and had consenual relations with Obama in the late 1990s, etc.)

Hillary and Bill have been here before in dealing with the false crap and distorted "facts" being thrown at them. Obama hasn't.

The small and petty nature of the title of your post, and it's obvious intent to insult Clinton supporters that read your blog reveal your small and petty nature.

They write that "if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee."

If the election were held two weeks ago, the opposite would be true. If the election were held at this time in 1988, Dukakis would have won by 10 points. If the election were held at this time in 1992, George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected by 10 points. Nobody familiar with politics will be remotely convinced by general election polls 6 months out because they are completely unreliable.

No one said that Claire shouldn't feel good. However, that's not reason enough to shut down the whole process.

I know you would protest strongly, but the real purpose for repeated calls for Hillary to withdraw, for your post, etc etc. is that Obama is NOT a clear winner. You see, as Pat Buchanan said, he lost 31 straight primaries and didn't concede to Bush I until the convention. I bet no one cared. Because the outcome was clear. Pat didn't have a chance.

I wonder, since you guys cite rules so much, have you noticed the simple fact the superdelegates can change their mind until the convention? So, unless one candidate concedes, we have to wait till convention to make sure who is the winner, regardless of anyone's opinion. In fact, I know that you KNOW that fact. That's the REAL reason behind shouting for something like two months that Hillary should quit. (or Psychologically taking her out. We understand. It's all part of the game.)

Because, as you know very well, the only way to stop the process and short-circuit it, is to force Clinton to withdraw. It's been a tough a horse race, your candidate is tired out, and is eager to call the race NOW.

BTW, you guys keep telling us that Hillary has high unfavorability ratings and no one likes her. Americans also love to back a winner. Your guy has a great come-from-behind story. So, why won't the American voters just flock to him? At this stage, he should be winning EVERY primary by double digits, not limping and lecturing everyone about math.

ghost2, even Terry McAuliffe promises that it will be over June 15th, so there's no way in hell it's going until the convention. Clinton would be making alot of enemies as well. Most people understand the benefit of having more Democrats registering and participating in the primaries and the problems the negative campaigning is causing. Since Wisconsin it has been pretty clear that Obama would be the nominee, and Clinton hasn't had a huge unexpected win to change that. With each contest, Obama's overall win becomes more and more certain.

Now Clinton is trying to foist the fake gas tax holiday on the Senate. Democrats will be in the position of either voting for what every economist says is a stupid pandering (and Republican) idea or be subject to attack ads for voting against it in November. It's the worst of politics and Clinton is using it against not just Obama but her whole party. It has zero chance of actually becoming law, as well, because the House won't take it up.

another desperate Kool Aid drinker, I see. If Obama had the nom in the bag, the SDs would have decided already. His baggage is toxic to the party and his ugly, divisive campaign has put the lie to his unity schtick. He can't think on his feet or debate his way out of a paper bag. However I do agree that the deck is and has been stacked against Senator Clinton since before this primary began.

What miguelito said.

miguelito, the deck was stacked against Clinton before the primaries began? She had 100% name recognition, was married to a successful president who campaigns for her, had huge fundraising, and had establishment support. Her campaign decision to ignore so many states is why Obama will get the nomination.

Super Delegates have different reasons not to endorse now, mostly because they don't want to anger anyone or cut off potential fund raisers. It's much easier to just go with the winner at the end.

Sad but true. Right but wrong. The Dems have pretty much already sealed their fate. The Clinton hate led Obama to the top before anyone could see what a mistake they were making. I'm working already to accept President McCain. The Clinton hatred that led the party to destroy itself will hurt the Dems far past 08. This was supposed to be easy, now it is frankly, impossible. Clinton is the only thing we have left to win it but she will not be the nominee.

DET is correct. Clinton has promised to support Obama if he is nominated. The Clinton supporters have made no such promise. They feel (with some justification) that Clinton-hatred has ruled the DNC. Many of them are unlikely to support what they percieve to be the cause of the bad treatment. In addition, Obama supporters (whether sanctioned by the campaign or not) have said things about Clinton and her supporters that would draw an FCC fine if said on TV. Clinton supporters are not entirely blameless, but the Obama supporters take it to the level of a (demented) art form. Obama risks having to win the GE (if he is nominated) with 1/2 of the Democratic party.

I'm working already to accept President McCain.

You ought to be working for Obama this fall! Kerry wasn't my first or second choice in 2004, but I went to $%&#@ Nevada to get out the vote for him because I'm not going to sit idly by and let my country be ruled by war-mongering right-wingers without a fight! Get a grip!

You folks really want Hillary to get out now. That's because she will kick his rear in most of the remaining primaries.

He is damaged goods.

He is unelectable.

Now, the only questions are will the Super D's back this flawed candidate? Will she get the popular vote, and the Super D's truly vote to reflect the will of the people?

You say it's over because you want it to be over. Wait 'til you see the exodus of women and blue collar voters should he get the nod. It won't be pretty. (and there are MANY more of them than black voters who will leave).

Hillary Clinton - President of the 11 States of America!

I love it when people state "It just doesn't matter."

That's when you know, it really does. Boston Red Sox fans used to say that when they were shut out of the World Series. Then, they won, and what do you know -- it DOES matter and underdogs can and do win -- all the time!

Those of us in Ohio used to say the Cleveland was a football town and the hapless Cleveland Indians didn't matter. Guess what? They got their act together and although we've always been underdogs (like last year when we were supposed to sit down before the postseason began) they win and win and... who knows?

Thanks for the heads up on this line of inevitability. Those of us on Team Hillary will see you in January at her inauguration. Wear something warm because... it does matter!

You get a grip CA Pol Junkie. You act as though I said I support McCain. How do you know what I will be doing this fall and where in my message do you gather whom I support or whom I will campaign for? Now, for all those more or less kicked out of the party, good luck in getting them to hit the streets for Obama, who simply cannot win, regardless of what any of us do.

So I'm clearly not the one who made this mess. Don't hold me responsible. Look to the Obama's personal smear campaign, his minions, the lefty blogs and the party establishment who have all treated Hillary and her supporters like shit.

As someone who was an Edwards supporter and who would have previously not cared less which one was left after he dropped off, I do take extreme offense to the Obamanation's destruction of the party.

Bless, blessed. The point is Kos took one silly sentence from the entire O'Reilly interview to make a pointless point. I used to think the guy was sane and rational.

Olbermann did the same thing. He said the O'Reilly interview was pathetic, outrageous and "She was doing a freakin' info-merical" because she's broke.

They have both lost all credibility. Obama has taken over their minds.

Look to the Obama's personal smear campaign, his minions, the lefty blogs and the party establishment who have all treated Hillary and her supporters like shit.

Of course, when you say this you are being played by the Clinton smear machine. The neat thing is I defended Bill big time after the lascivious old fuck couldn't keep his pants up around women, and then Clinton's campaign uses the same media smear machine used against Bill to create your thoughts about Obama. I bet you never thought you'd be a tool of the right wing media. You can thank your soulless bitch-goddess for making you one.

something tells me you too have a problem keeping your pants up. prolly just your constant hypocritical comments make me think this is hypocritical too.

Or, you could put it this way:

The difference between Clinton and Obama is 1,942 - 1,862 = 80.