Clinton on the Sweep

Here's Hillary Clinton's take on getting shut out over the weekend:

She said she never expected to do well in any of those contests, even though she had been favored to win Maine. Clinton repeated her criticism that the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists.

As for Louisiana, "You had a very strong and very proud African- American electorate, which I totally respect and understand," Clinton said.

It's worth noting that there was a time -- a time called "2007" -- when Clinton was expecting to hold her own among African-Americans. Not necessarily win the black vote, but do well enough to get by. For a contrast, women were a majority of participants in every single Democratic primary and caucus, so every time Obama won he had to stay at least somewhat competitive within the women sub-sample. For Clinton, that kind of performance among African-Americans now seems out of reach, but it wasn't ever thus. Similarly, the idea that caucuses are unfairly disadvantaging the establishment candidate would have struck most people as very odd before the voting began. The truth seems to be that Clinton simply spent more money on consultants and less on organizers, and a paucity of organizers can hurt you badly in a caucus.

Comments

It can't be good for her Clinton that her spin is both predictable and laughable. Like I said in the previous post, I am having a tough time contemplating the response they will issue after losing three primaries tomorrow, one of which, in Virginia, is a swing state with lots of rural and white voters.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 6:04 PM

Good post. The fervent goal-post moving among the Clintonites is just dizzying. Anyone have any guesses what hilarious nuggets they'll be offering up tomorrow night?

Posted by greg | February 11, 2008 6:10 PM

I think fundamentally this shows they did not plan to run a truly competitive race beyond Feb. 5th and combinded with her financial difficulties they created issues for themselves that they did not have to at all.

Second, the Obama campaign has really impressed me by how much they seem to have thought through this campaign. Both campaigns obviously didn't expect trench warfare til the convention: but the Obama camp DID expect a huge fight. I think psychologically this might give them an edge.

But the Clintons are at their best when down and out.

Posted by Rhoda | February 11, 2008 6:12 PM

I like this part of Sen. Clinton's magical history tour:

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins. "But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan … And we've got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma."

Alaska - open Senate seat, lots of AK corruption
North Dakota - two Democratic Senators
Nebraska - one Democratic Senator, one open seat
Idaho - she got this one right

Texas - two GOP Senators, lost by 22.9% in '04
Okla. - two GOP Senators, lost by 31.2% in '04
Missouri - Obama beat Clinton in Missouri

Posted by joejoejoe | February 11, 2008 6:17 PM

Hillary is looking more and more Rudyish. She really needs to win something. That said, the paranoid shrieking around here about "how dare she do x??" is over the top.

Posted by Marshall | February 11, 2008 6:18 PM

I'm not real impressed seeing this kind of logic from Clinton's supporters online...but it's an entirely different effect hearing it from the candidate herself.

Seriously: this is weak stuff. I'm thankful that Obama doesn't make excuses like this.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 11, 2008 6:20 PM

I'm glad the AP pointed out that she was favored to win Maine.

Posted by John | February 11, 2008 6:25 PM

The writers strike needs to end so they can do the devasting SNL skit of Hillary explaining away her latest round of defeats.

Posted by Eric k | February 11, 2008 6:26 PM

Matt skipped the best part, where Clinton says she's "ahead in the popular vote and in delegates." Of course, she's ahead in neither. In delegates, they're just about even -- if you count superdelegates, which you probably shouldn't. In the popular vote, Obama was basically tied after Super Tuesday (even if you undercount caucus sites, which is apparently usually done) so now he's surely ahead.

So what is she talking about? I bet she's counting Florida and Michigan as part of her popular vote totals, right?

What is the point of spinning like this? Is it actually useful? Wouldn't it be better to just say, "We've taken a bunch of hits, but we're working very hard, we're still competitive, and we're going to pull this one out"? I guess once you start with the bullshit, though, it's hard to stop....

Posted by NoahB | February 11, 2008 6:26 PM

Desperation is a tender trap. It gets you every time.

Posted by Jake | February 11, 2008 6:28 PM

Yeah, if you were reading any articles yesterday morning you know that according to her staffers she thought she had a decent chance and the media rating was tossup to slight Clinton favorite. Remember, the narrative was that it was a caucus but also full of older, lower-income whites who were Clinton's base? Of course intrade did not agree with the media narrative, but then...

Posted by John M. | February 11, 2008 6:30 PM

I guess once you start with the bullshit, though, it's hard to stop....

Indeed. Our current president has been bullshitting for about seven years now. This kind of up is down stuff from HRC is really troubling.

Posted by Jake | February 11, 2008 6:31 PM

Seriously: this is weak stuff. I'm thankful that Obama doesn't make excuses like this.

You don't have to make excuses like this when you're the one winning.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 6:33 PM

I liked this from the linked article:

"Before Super Tuesday you all were reporting on all the momentum. It didn't turn out to be true," she said. "Let's have the elections. Instead of talking about them, pontificating and punditing, let's let people actually vote."

Uh, the momentum kinda did turn out to be true. Also, to decode that last statement, "The more that voters learn about Obama, the more they seem to favor him, so could you media types please keep them more in the dark? Kthx."

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | February 11, 2008 6:34 PM

Sen. Clinton's statements are more evidence that she doesn't give a crap about the state of the Democratic party. Obama won 10 states with GOP Senate seats in play in '08, Clinton won 3 states. Simply dismissing the states Obama won might serve candidate Hillary Clinton in the primary battle but since the prize is actually governing the country it's extremely short sighted to throw states with winnable Senate seats under the bus.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 11, 2008 6:37 PM

Joe,

I like this part of Sen. Clinton's magical history tour:

Yeah, not a big fan of dismissing the Democrats in these red areas. It's not just Senate seats; we're electing Representatives from these states/districts, too, and the fact that even these places are seeing enormous turnout from Democrats eager to enact change, that's not something to be dismissive over. It's fantastic.

In New Mexico, there are three open House seats and an open Senate seat. If the Democrats in Alaska are eager and excited, that's fantastic, let's get Mark Begich to knock off Uncle Ted. If Democrats are turning out in record numbers in Georgia, phenomenal, we'll help Reps. Barrow and Marshall keep their seats. Same with Kansas and Nancy Boyda, or Illinois and Melissa Bean, or so on. People keep talking about whether or not Obama will help the party, but at least he's not writing off all of these Democrats and their votes.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 6:45 PM

Of course she lost. The media have been knocking the Clintons for weeks, although ya'll will pretend not to notice. And you sure won't take responsibility for bringing republican smear tactics into the democratic party. Thanks for that, by the way.
Hillary won the educated States, and if you knew anything about this country, you'd know that Obama's feel good rhetoric is totally naive and meant for the young and inexperienced. Red States joing the democratic party indeed. He won't keep those ridiculous promises, but Hillary has only made promises she can keep. It's called integrity. You would also know that the policies Obama is tweaking and calling his own were created by the Clinons when Bill was a leading intellectual in the DLC.

Posted by Will | February 11, 2008 6:50 PM

Another good bit from the article:

"I think this is long overdue," Clinton said to cheers. "I think it is wrong that we disenfranchise the people who live and work in this city [DC]."

What she forgot to add, of course, is that she will be pointing out how many black voters there are in DC on Wed.--so they don't matter. Black voters and white yuppies--two groups that don't "count."

Posted by david | February 11, 2008 6:50 PM

It strikes me that Obama can use this to really hammer Clinton. Maybe he'll throw it in his (possible) victory speech in Wisconsin tomorrow night - "My opponent says that caucus states don't matter, that states with large African American populations don't matter. That red states don't matter and states with too many white people don't matter. Well, I say they do matter! And I'm going to fight in every state and fight for the votes of every American!"

I think it could go over well.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 6:52 PM

How is she planning on spinning her loss in Virginia? Last I saw, it's a primary, in a larger-than-average state, which the Democrats can win in the fall, where both campaigns have committed resources, and with Goldilocks-levels of African-Americans.

Attacking the voters is pretty tacky.

Posted by David B. | February 11, 2008 6:54 PM

Matthew writes "It's worth noting that there was a time -- a time called "2007" -- when Clinton was expecting to hold her own among African-Americans. The truth seems to be that Clinton simply spent more money on consultants and less on organizers, and a paucity of organizers can hurt you badly in a caucus."

Weak explanation. Didn't you and I already agree she's losing the African American vote because of her race baiting?

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 6:55 PM

Matthew writes "It's worth noting that there was a time -- a time called "2007" -- when Clinton was expecting to hold her own among African-Americans. The truth seems to be that Clinton simply spent more money on consultants and less on organizers, and a paucity of organizers can hurt you badly in a caucus."

Weak explanation. Didn't you and I already agree she's losing the African American vote because of her race baiting?

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 6:55 PM

Hillary has integrity? The same person who signed an agreement stating that MI and FL wouldn't count and then cries foul when she wants the delegates to be seated for her "wins"? The same person who mocked Obama's message and then co-opted it once she saw that people liked it? The same person who is meticulously molded by focus groups and polling data? Integrity - really?

Posted by TPH | February 11, 2008 6:55 PM

I recall a distant time in which Sen. Clinton was actually polling much better than Sen. Obama among African-Americans, leading to media stories asking if he was "black enough" etc.

African-American support didn't come automatically to Sen. Obama. He had to earn it.

Posted by JoshA | February 11, 2008 6:56 PM

Will, pass the kool-aid. I love sour grape flavor.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 6:57 PM

"It's worth noting that there was a time -- a time called "2007" -- when Clinton was expecting to hold her own among African-Americans"

Dude, alright, we get your point, she's spinning... what else would you expect her to do? Enough with stating the obvious, even if it's just so you can gloat like Sullivan.

Posted by Israel | February 11, 2008 6:58 PM

the idea that caucuses are unfairly disadvantaging the establishment candidate would have struck most people as very odd before the voting began

This is the most baffling part of the Clinton failure in the caucuses. Fewer people participate, and those that do tend to be more committed party members. As a result, the candidate with the greatest ties to the party apparatus throughout the country (ie. HRC) should do very well. Add to that the money necessary to organize, and HRC was tailor made to clean up in the caucuses (because, don't forget, until about 3 weeks ago, it was HRC who had the huge advantage in money and fundraising - especially back in the early days of the campaign when organizing for the caucuses was most important).

Posted by McKingford | February 11, 2008 7:01 PM

"And you sure won't take responsibility for bringing republican smear tactics into the democratic party."

Lets talk about race-baiting and voter disenfranchisement. Lets talk about chain-email smears and whisper campaigns. Lets talk about fairy tales.

"Hillary won the educated States"

Obama does best amongst the college-educated. Hillary does best amongst people who don't follow politics too much.

"Red States joining the democratic party indeed."

Right on. Who ever heard of states like Montana or Virginia or Nebraska having two Democratic senators (and maybe a Dem governor). We'll have none of that around here. If you want to be a part of the Democratic party, you're whole state has to join too.

"Hillary has only made promises she can keep."

Like promises to respect IA and NH? Promises to respect the delegates elected by caucus states? Promises to respect the DNC's line on FL and MI?

"It's called integrity."

And Hillary is the candidate of integrity? I'm not sure you'll get much agreement with that statement around here (or many other places).

You would also know that the policies Obama is tweaking and calling his own were created by the Clinons when Bill was a leading intellectual in the DLC.

Obama is no DLC hack.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 7:07 PM

And you sure won't take responsibility for bringing republican smear tactics into the democratic party. Thanks for that, by the way.

Coming from a Clinton supporter?

You must be kidding.

How you typed that without being immediately struck by lightning...

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 7:07 PM

Barack Obama, the Manchurian Candidate. Never before have so many been taken in by a cipher...oops didn't that happen in 2000??
What a bunch of total aholes you have here, you sexist creeps.

Posted by Ruth Kaplan | February 11, 2008 7:09 PM

Barack Obama, the Manchurian Candidate. Never before have so many been taken in by a cipher...oops didn't that happen in 2000??

Posted by Ruth Kaplan | February 11, 2008 7:10 PM

Barack Obama, the Manchurian Candidate. Never before have so many been taken in by a cipher...oops didn't that happen in 2000??
What a bunch of total aholes you have here, you sexist creeps.

Yet another convincing argument to vote for Hillary, courtesy her supporters. I'll never understand why she doesn't attract new voters.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 7:11 PM

I wonder how "in-context" some of her quotes are in the AP article.

The writer uses a weird device: "As for Louisiana,..." as a preface to the quote from Clinton.

Not that I would vote from her, but my experience with the press always gives me pause.

Posted by trainwreck | February 11, 2008 7:11 PM

Give me a scenario for the next 2 or 3 weeks that brings Senator Clinton back.

I just don't see it. It's time to start cutting losses and facing the reality of what is.

Posted by Garuda | February 11, 2008 7:11 PM

Wow. My Dumbest Post Ever nomination goes to Will:

"And you sure won't take responsibility for bringing republican smear tactics into the democratic party."

Wtf? Do point out some examples of this, please. Any smearing of Clinton has been done by the media, not the Obama campaign.

"Hillary won the educated States"

Yes, damn those ignorant hillbillies in Seattle! If you're going to make that argument, perhaps you should consider that Obama wins among the better-educated.

"and if you knew anything about this country, you'd know that Obama's feel good rhetoric is totally naive and meant for the young and inexperienced."

Sorry buddy but the uplifting, likeable candidate pretty much always wins in American politics. This seems pretty obvious. Do point out some examples otherwise.

"Hillary has only made promises she can keep."

Don't make me laugh.

"It's called integrity."

Oh stop.

"You would also know that the policies Obama is tweaking and calling his own were created by the Clinons when Bill was a leading intellectual in the DLC."

Another laughable, evidence-free assertion!

Posted by greg | February 11, 2008 7:12 PM

What a bunch of total aholes you have here, you sexist creeps.

The first vote I ever cast was to elect the first female governor of my state. I'm proud of that vote. Guess I have to never vote against any woman ever, though, in your eyes.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 7:12 PM

Wow. My Dumbest Post Ever nomination goes to Will:

"And you sure won't take responsibility for bringing republican smear tactics into the democratic party."

Wtf? Do point out some examples of this, please. Any smearing of Clinton has been done by the media, not the Obama campaign.

"Hillary won the educated States"

Yes, damn those ignorant hillbillies in Seattle! If you're going to make that argument, perhaps you should consider that Obama wins among the better-educated.

"and if you knew anything about this country, you'd know that Obama's feel good rhetoric is totally naive and meant for the young and inexperienced."

Sorry buddy but the uplifting, likeable candidate pretty much always wins in American politics. This seems pretty obvious. Do point out some examples otherwise.

"Hillary has only made promises she can keep."

Don't make me laugh.

"It's called integrity."

Oh stop. Like trying to change the rules of the game midway? Or pidgeonholing Obama as just a black candidate?

"You would also know that the policies Obama is tweaking and calling his own were created by the Clinons when Bill was a leading intellectual in the DLC."

Another laughable, evidence-free assertion!

Posted by greg | February 11, 2008 7:13 PM

"you sexist creeps"

This is the thing that has really puzzled me about Clinton supporters. It seems to like some of them view it as a creepy, sexist act to support (or even run as) a male candidate in this election. Like Obama should know his place in line and it's behind the white woman.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 7:14 PM

I think normally the caucus-primary results would not be so skewed, but Hillary's vote is, to a great extent, moms and dads with children and I get the impression that the caucus process pretty arduous way to spend a Saturday. I'm haven't seen in any statistics on that, but does anybody doubt that Hillary does way better among people who are raising children than with single adults? Of course even more so if the stats broken down by race.

Posted by SMcC | February 11, 2008 7:16 PM

It looks like she got out-organized at the caucauses. She was probably counting on her lead carrying her through.

KDrum keeps focusing on why Obama is winning caucauses, but it seems more like the theory should be 'Hillary only does well in Machine states', where the apparatus of officialdom can carry early voters with name-recognition and William Jefferson. So Obama should do well in Texas and Ohio but Clinton should Hawaii. Particularly since Obama has been clever enough to be progressive and still blow the Reagan Democrat dog-whistle.

max
['I think she's just not as popular as Obama.']

Posted by max | February 11, 2008 7:16 PM

I think normally the caucus-primary results would not be so skewed, but Hillary's vote is, to a great extent, moms and dads with children and I get the impression that the caucus process pretty arduous way to spend a Saturday. I'm haven't seen in any statistics on that, but does anybody doubt that Hillary does way better among people who are raising children than with single adults? Of course even more so if the stats broken down by race.

My brother caucuses in Washington and he and his wife took their 1-year old daughter. He said there were many children there. Also, in many of these caucus states, you don't have to stand around for hours but can write your choice on a piece of paper and leave. It's not as un-'merican as Mrs. Clinton would like us to believe.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 7:19 PM

My Maine precinct went for Kerry the last time, the clear establishment candidate of 2004.

It was three to one for Obama this time, with a huge increase in participants, including lots of former independents who registered Democratic in order to participate.

These caucuses were very open affairs, very democratic. And, considering that she thought they were winnable -- she made two appearances in the state, Bill made four, Chelsea a number of others -- it really feels like sour grapes.

And, if Clinton doesn't care for activists, this one would be happy to refrain from organizing efforts in the fall should Clinton become the nominee.

Posted by Sue | February 11, 2008 7:20 PM

What a bunch of total aholes you have here, you sexist creeps.

I've been seeing this more and more lately from Clinton supporters. I guess it is just a sign of desperation, but it isn't pretty. Of course, though, anyone who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist creep. When arguments fail, just start name-calling, I guess.

Posted by jim | February 11, 2008 7:23 PM

He won't keep those ridiculous promises, but Hillary has only made promises she can keep. It's called integrity.

I almost threw up in my mouth a little after reading this little morsel. You have got to be smoking something strong there brother.

Posted by Jake | February 11, 2008 7:27 PM

I remember Howard Dean raising some similar points about the caucus format (or rather Dean's points from a Canadian TV show taped years earlier) in 2004. And I clearly remember how Hillary agreed and said that the caucus system should be reworked for 2008. Oh, wait, no she didn't.

But before Iowa this year she said something similar to Dean, right? And the people of Iowa took it out on her in their votes. But it was courageous to raise those objections before voting began just the same. Oh, whoops, she didn't do that either.

In fact she only has had a problem with the caucus system since it turned out that she couldn't win them. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and her stance on caucuses now does nothing to reinforce the idea that she's a political opportunist. After all it's all David Shuster's fault.

Posted by kidkostar | February 11, 2008 7:32 PM

"I think normally the caucus-primary results would not be so skewed, but Hillary's vote is, to a great extent, moms and dads with children and I get the impression that the caucus process pretty arduous way to spend a Saturday"

A good friend of mine voted in the North Dakota caucus. All he had to do was show up, fill out a little slip, put it in a sealed case, and go on his merrry way. I am not saying it is like that in all the caucuses, but Obama is genuinely more popular in a lot of these states.

Posted by David | February 11, 2008 7:32 PM

Re the sexism issue: as an Obama supporter married to a Clinton supporter, I get a bit of insight into the emotions that power both sides of this primary battle. If Obama starts to win this thing -- which I hope he does -- it's gonna be crucial for Obama's supporters to respectfully remember the feminist aspirations that are being disappointed in the process. Whatever you think of HRC's campaign, they're valid aspirations.

Not saying we're all sexists. Not saying that we have to ignore Clinton spin, or refrain absolutely from gloating. But it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that people on the other side have real ideals (even if, say, Mark Penn doesn't).

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 7:45 PM

The Clinton supporters really need to stop, take a collective deep breath, and stop doing their level best to ensure Andrew Sullivan has a point - which I didn't think was really possible.

Stuff like this: "Hillary won the educated States" - makes her, and you, look like giant douches, just like Bill when he said that - "yeah, well, you know Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too," and instantly transformed from the "first black president" to just another in a long line of douchebag presidents*.

*and yes, I still like many things about the man, and he was only campaiging for his wife, but in a very clumsy and mean-spirited manner, which was a bit shocking.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 7:47 PM

Ruth--
We're not all sexist aholes. Some of us are uppity negroes.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 11, 2008 7:48 PM

Somebody asked how Hillary could come back in the next few weeks:

--she does much better than expected in Virginia, winning or losing by a couple of points

--her fundraising online continues apace, allowing her to organize and campaign hard in Wisconsin, and she wins that narrowly

--she wins Texas and Ohio by more than expected (5-10 points for both?)

--better fundraising and organizing allows her to compete more effectively in the remaining states

At that point, Obama's still probably ahead in earned delegates, but momentum's going her way. She uses that and her superior establishment credentials to sway more superdelegates, giving her the edge at the convention, where she seats Michigan and Florida, solidifying her win.

It's not an especially likely scenario. If she gets swamped tomorrow it gets more unlikely yet...but you never can tell. Polls aren't always correct, as we've learned.

Posted by NoahB | February 11, 2008 7:49 PM

I think normally the caucus-primary results would not be so skewed, but Hillary's vote is, to a great extent, moms and dads with children and I get the impression that the caucus process pretty arduous way to spend a Saturday.

This is silly. Clinton's supporters are old. The demographics show that Obama wins 18-49 year olds - i.e., those likely to have young children who can't be left at home by themselves. This is, so far as I can tell, completely ad hoc.

Hillary has very strong support among retirees, who are the group with by far the most free time.

Posted by John | February 11, 2008 7:52 PM

I mean, for instance, there are moments when I'm tempted to dismiss all opposition to Barack as unconscious racism. That's not quite true. But I can understand why Clinton supporters see a lot of sexism around -- even where it doesn't exist. It is true, after all, that female candidates get held to some impossibly contradictory standards.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 7:52 PM

for the sake of pary and nation, billary must withdraw from the race...they have been repudiated, and their behaivor looks more and more disgusting.

Posted by canns | February 11, 2008 7:52 PM

And, if Clinton doesn't care for activists, this one would be happy to refrain from organizing efforts in the fall should Clinton become the nominee.

I know Andrew Sullivan isn't trusted much in these parts, but I do believe he prints his emails as he gets them(That while he likes Obama, he is not printing phony emails). You are far from alone according to the email Sully gets. It's why I am beginning to think Obama will absolutely crush McCain come Novemeber(provided nothing freaky happens in the mean time).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 11, 2008 7:53 PM

I think it's really, really important for Obama to do a couple things here: first, aside from the fact that he's obviously going to win Virginia and Maryland, I think he needs to do very well among white voters in at least one (preferrably both) of these states, perhaps even win them outright; and second, he absolutely needs to win Wisconsin (a primary) next week.

Accomplishing these two things would effectively allow him and his campaign to counter some of the talking points that are starting to take hold regarding his candidacy.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 7:55 PM

NoahB,

I think you've outlined a plausible scenario, with the exception that I don't see her fundraising and organizing passing Obama's. Or maybe you just meant better than she's done to date? That would make more sense.

Posted by Jake | February 11, 2008 7:55 PM

SoCalJustice - I would be careful throwing around terms for female hygiene products in the pejorative sense, it just makes you look like a sexist pig. You really need to call people "non-gender specific organ and cavity cleaners" if you have to resort to such tactics.

Posted by TPH | February 11, 2008 7:55 PM

Dear Superdelegate,

The only reason why Obama won more pledged delegates in your (district/state/country) (circle one) is that the activists in the Democratic Party hate me. So, please nominate me to lead that Party.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary

Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 7:57 PM

calling all toasters, you left out a third category of supporters. A bunch of us are liberal students longing for a hip black friend.

Posted by Zephyrus | February 11, 2008 8:15 PM

Jake...yes, I meant better than she's done so far. She's not going to outraise Obama, obviously -- though the fact that it's obvious is a big part of her problem.

I also find it amazing that she's decided to sneer at party activists. I mean, you need the activists. You want people to volunteer and donate time and money. I presume that's the rationale for caucuses; you want a nominee who inspires people to invest some time, so that in the general election you've got a lot of people on your side who are, you know, willing to invest some time. I mean, obviously it's not as bone-headedly divisive as casting aspersions on the black vote -- but it doesn't seem calculated to energize your volunteers either.

But they're really in the "just say anything" phase at the moment. According to the Field, it looks like she may not even be planning to contest Wisconsin in any meaningful way, which seems like death to me. But I guess we've got to trust Mark Penn....

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=549

Posted by NoahB | February 11, 2008 8:20 PM

Has it occurred to folks that it is Bill Clinton who is best when on the ropes, it is Bill Clinton who has the best political instincts, it is Bill Clinton who has the best of instincts and policy knowledge?

Hillary Clinton is getting all the reputation for what Bill really produced. She certainly has knowledge and discipline, but that's a far cry from making up for what she lacks that Bill has.

Posted by david in norcal | February 11, 2008 8:24 PM

But they're really in the "just say anything" phase at the moment. According to the Field, it looks like she may not even be planning to contest Wisconsin in any meaningful way, which seems like death to me. But I guess we've got to trust Mark Penn....

Well, Giordano (who's been fantastic at reporting this cycle) so far only seems to be basing that on the fact that while Obama will be in Wisconsin on Tuesday, Clinton will be on Texas. There's still a week to go, so she may yet have plans for Wisconsin... though admittedly, the fact that Obama is going to be there tomorrow night and is running ads right now (and is, I'm sure, working Feingold hard for an endorsement) is helpful to his cause.

Winning Wisconsin would be hugely significant for Obama because it really takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of these arguments being thrown at him right now. It's a heavily white state, but one with a decent black population (6%, comparable to Massachusetts and California). And it's a primary election vs. a caucus, so winning that would add another layer of validation to his ND/KS/CO/MN/ID/UT victories. "See, primaries and caucuses, I'm winning all across the Great Plains and the west because the people of these great states believe blah blah whatever." It sharpens the point (which Slate made) that these are all true geographic victories for Obama rather than process victories.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 8:29 PM

Well said, Ted.

On contesting wisconsin: it's one thing to not campaign in states that the national party say are of limits, but it's another thing entirely to write off a competitive swing state because it's not convenient. Hillary is saying, with her strategy, that she only cares about NY and CA and TX. All you other little states can go suck one.

Posted by Ben | February 11, 2008 8:30 PM

TPH,

Fair points, all.

Having said that, looks like the New York Times is sexist too:

Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several of them said afterward that she sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas. And these donors and superdelegates said that they were not especially soothed, saying they believed she could be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in Ohio and Texas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 8:30 PM

Somebody asked how Hillary could come back in the next few weeks:
--she does much better than expected in Virginia, winning or losing by a couple of points
--her fundraising online continues apace, allowing her to organize and campaign hard in Wisconsin, and she wins that narrowly
--she wins Texas and Ohio by more than expected (5-10 points for both?)
--better fundraising and organizing allows her to compete more effectively in the remaining states
At that point, Obama's still probably ahead in earned delegates, but momentum's going her way. She uses that and her superior establishment credentials to sway more superdelegates, giving her the edge at the convention, where she seats Michigan and Florida, solidifying her win.

I think Virginia's a lost cause already, the only goal left is to try and keep the margin as low as possible. Another one of those 20+ point wins will insure that Obama ends up winning more bonus delegates. Wisconsin could still be in play and, at the very least, she has to keep the margin close. Obama's margins have been so large that Sen. Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio by large margins - at least more than 10% and really needing around 20%. Then she has to do the same in Pennsylvania. If she can't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with large enough margins, the super delegate situation is going to be touchy. Obama could end up with more overall elected delegates and Hillary will have to hope super delegates, with enough arm twisting, calling in of favors, and promises, will give her the delegate lead, then win the floor fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, and hopefully, at that point, have enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

That's an overall scenario that seems just way too complicated to play out.

Posted by dave.reese | February 11, 2008 8:35 PM

female candidates get held to some impossibly contradictory standards.

I don't find that to be true. I live on the Kanasas side of the KC area where we have a female governor and watched the McCaskill senate race on the Missouri side. Them being female didn't seem to play a part in either's election.

Posted by Mike | February 11, 2008 8:37 PM

That's an overall scenario that seems just way too complicated to play out.

Not to mention that it's a scenario that practically guarantees a general-election loss- and resulting future status as lepers for the Clintons in the Democratic Party. I hope she wouldn't go there.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 11, 2008 8:41 PM

Good point Mike. The problem with Hillary is not sexism. The problem is she is a cold-hearted politically manipulating witch and shrew. If she loses, its her fault.

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 8:44 PM

I can't imagine Clinton is really skipping Wisconsin, but I suspect they are setting up the possibility of claiming they did not really contest Wisconsin should she lose badly.

Although I really can't figure out why they think it is a good strategy to keep implying they are choosing to get blown out in some of these states (or alternatively that they are so cash-strapped they have no choice). But I guess I also can't figure out a better strategy for them, at least not without rewinding the clock to about July of 2007.

Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 8:44 PM

Obama could end up with more overall elected delegates and Hillary will have to hope super delegates, with enough arm twisting, calling in of favors, and promises, will give her the delegate lead, then win the floor fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, and hopefully, at that point, have enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

That's an overall scenario that seems just way too complicated to play out.

I think you're missing the bigger issue. If that scenario ever transpires, all hell will break loose. There will be marches, protests, tens of millions of angry e-mails, the internet well will instantly run dry, and half of the Democratic coalition will sit the election out. The super delegates MUST solidify the winner of the pledged delegates (as I assume they will). If they do not, it's curtains for the Democratic Party.

Posted by asdf | February 11, 2008 8:50 PM

"Hillary has only made promises she can keep. It's called integrity."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

This woman is the most corrupt politician since Hermann Goering. (I know, I said that about Diane Feinstein, but Hillary has at least as much experience - and more opportunity.)

Josh Marshall thinks "All Republican Corruption All the Time" is his motto - I can't wait to see what he can do with "All Clinton Corruption All the Time" once Bill gets his shoes on the White House floors again.

We'll see Marc Rich as Secretary of State, insuring that Turkey and Israel get as much military foreign aid as possible.

At the DoD, we'll see Israeli generals running the war on Iran. (Think I'm kidding? Do you know who is PLANNING the war on Iran? Hint: Look up Dr. Lani Kass in Google.)

And the Clinton's net worth will just get bigger and bigger...

Why do think Obama's campaign is demanding to see her tax returns?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 8:58 PM

Obama is simply the better candidate that can inspire this country to Greatness in a way that Hilary cannot.

My girlfriend saw him today and she was estatic, she says he is even much better in person, he took a quick moment to talk to people.

Hilary is such a sore looser. Fact is people are rejecting her all around the country.

Obama 08.

Posted by Jon | February 11, 2008 8:59 PM

asdf, a lot of folks have said that if the superdelegates throw it to Clinton, it'll be disaster. I wonder if that's true though. She has a lot of support, and most people who vote for Obama like her just fine. She's got to have some excuse though...which is why she's shilling for Michigan and Florida, and trying to spin his victories away. I think it could work without being disastrous if she keeps it close -- which she's not really doing. But if she doesn't keep it close, it's not clear to me how she gets the superdelegates to support her anyway.

I mean, basically I think she's toast. But I've thought that before...and then she won New Hampshire, or raised 5 million in a day. Ain't over til it's over.

Posted by NoahB | February 11, 2008 9:04 PM

If you enjoy reading weak excuses, take a look at a few of Obama's responses to criticism about Rezko, the Maytag workers, missing votes, and carrying water for nuclear and coal interests.

Some of the overwrought comments are comical coming from people who spent the past week either implying anyone who did not vote for Obama was a racist or an ignorant prole and bitterly complaining about superdelegates.

These fine works of complete insincerity are somehow enticing and repulsive simultaneously.

Posted by funny that | February 11, 2008 9:05 PM

I think we're all getting ahead of ourselves here. Remember, Hillary has been written off as dead before. And yet, she comes back to life (much to my shock and horror, but still.) And I don't even think comparisons to Guiliani are particularly apt, because Clinton has deep and broad support among Democrats in a way that I don't think Guiliani ever had among Republicans (I could be wrong about this, though.) I wouldn't even be surprised if she pulls off a win in Wisconsin, frankly. And I just read a blog post predicting that Clinton will win Texas by at least 6 points - not enough to guarantee a lead in pledged delegates, but it will swing "momentum" back in her favor. And I say this as someone who will be voting for Obama tomorrow.

Posted by Abby | February 11, 2008 9:15 PM

I just read a blog post predicting that Clinton will win Texas by at least 6 points

She's got to win Texas by a good deal more than 6 points, if she wants to get back in the game.

But I agree that WI should be watched. She's ahead there, last poll I saw, and the Clinton campaign's appearance of not contesting it is almost certainly a head-fake. I will be doing some phonebanking directed at Wisconsin this weekend, if it's on the list of states I can reach with Obama's website-phonebanking tool.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 9:28 PM

Yeah, Abby has a good point here. Team Clinton really seemed to be going down the drain in a big way before NH (remember the brief period of pathetic flailing of the Clinton campaign after Iowa) and they pulled it out and became the frontrunner again pretty quickly. At this point it will only take one surprise win to put Clinton back within striking distance on March 4th even without a landslide then. Guiliani had sort of a pathetic campaign with no clear base of support outside of greater NYC. HRC is liked by the vasted majority of Dem voters almost all of whom know her well.

Posted by ikl | February 11, 2008 9:33 PM

On the other hand, this must be tough for her to hear:

"'She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,' said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. 'The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.' Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view." (NYT)

I'm hoping that Obama's string of victories will have a domino effect that could swing Ohio and/or Texas his way, but given the demographic trends of the race so far, it seems unlikely.

Posted by Abby | February 11, 2008 9:48 PM

I think you're missing the bigger issue. If that scenario ever transpires, all hell will break loose. There will be marches, protests, tens of millions of angry e-mails, the internet well will instantly run dry, and half of the Democratic coalition will sit the election out. The super delegates MUST solidify the winner of the pledged delegates (as I assume they will). If they do not, it's curtains for the Democratic Party.

I understand the implications all too well. I don't know about the marches but all the excitement, good will, and interest in the Democratic candidate will go down the drain if it goes to that stage. Up to now, I think the extended campaign has been good for the party. If there isn't a clear winner or if the super delegates don't coalesce behind the elected delegate leader in the end though, the whole year would be a waste.

My greater point originally was that in creating end-game scenarios, the plausible one's seem to fall in the direction of Obama while Clinton is left with highly implausible combinations.

Posted by dave.reese | February 11, 2008 9:49 PM

Out, out damned spot,..., whew, the daggers are out and the nails is polisheed...youch...

Posted by Rihilism | February 11, 2008 9:54 PM

I tend to agree with those who say it's too early to call Clinton out, even without superdelegates.

Once Obama actually locks up a huge delegate lead over the next six weeks of primaries, then you can call it - and then hope something doesn't happen between that point and the convention - like Clinton bribing all the superdelegates, or Bill having Obama assassinated - or Bush attacking Iran and canceling the elections after another phony "terrorist incident."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 9:55 PM

"How is she planning on spinning her loss in Virginia? Last I saw, it's a primary, in a larger-than-average state, which the Democrats can win in the fall, where both campaigns have committed resources, and with Goldilocks-levels of African-Americans."

Silly, silly yuppies. Your votes only count in a Democratic primary if you are: (1) white or Latino (the latter votes count double); (2) older than 50; (3) a less-than-$50k earner; and (4) not in a caucus state.

Posted by Joe | February 11, 2008 10:03 PM

The problem with Hillary is not sexism. The problem is she is a cold-hearted politically manipulating witch and shrew.

Thank you, TLM, for your heartfelt and well-intentioned advice. Some people might think that this post was trollish. If so, they are unaware of your long history of sincere and generous encouragements tha you have kindly bestowed upon the online progressive community.

Posted by k | February 11, 2008 10:13 PM

Ted -

You are very right that we need to respect the Feminist longings behind the Clinton campaign.

I think if he is the nominee, Obama has got to choose a woman as VP. But not Hillary. She would just drag down the ticket.

To combat the "executive experience" argument, he also needs to pick a governor.

So its Sebelius or Napolitano. I don't know either of them well enough to chose between them.

If Hillary wins, the ONLY choice which will not fracture the party is to offer the VP nod to Obama. I'm not sure he'd take it, but if she doesn't at least offer, this Obama supporter will vote a straight Democratic ticket, but leave the "President" section blank. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Posted by David Headman | February 11, 2008 10:21 PM

Isn't Clinton playing the gender card here?

"You had a very strong and very proud African- American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

If Obama had said of another state, Well, 56% of the electorate are very strong and very proud women, which I totally respect and understand, I'm pretty sure the Clinton campaign would have jumped all over that.

Posted by plum | February 11, 2008 10:36 PM

Ted's right about the need to respect the aspirations of feminists voting for Clinton. However, let's not extrapolate from a couple of rash comments on this thread. About 70% of both Clinton and Obama supporters have said that would be satisfied if the other candidate were the nominee.

Posted by plum | February 11, 2008 10:46 PM

My 85 year old Mom called me out of the blue yesterday to talk about the election. I asked who she liked, and she said "Obama" with real excitement in her voice. Now, at 85, she doesn't have a lot of energy to get excited about much of anything, so I was quite impressed.

My Mom is one of those voters Obama can get the Hillary will have trouble reaching. If HRC gets the nomination, it's likely my Mom will want to vote for McCain (although maybe not, if my brothers and I can say "Iraq" enough.)

The point is that something has shifted down there in my unhappy country of origin. Nice to see some hope at last, after the Bush years giving us nothing but fear and anger.

Bruce M/Vancouver, BC Canada (a better country)

Posted by Bruce MacDonald | February 11, 2008 10:50 PM

Reading the comments from Obama's side, you would never know that he won this weekend. It's all about attacking Hillary. If he is the nominee, do you think Hillary's supporters will vote for him? Judging from your remarks, he's planning to win in November without us.

Posted by EWard | February 11, 2008 11:04 PM

This is my first post but this meme--trotted out by Halperin yesterday night as his advice on how Hillary could survive February--is so ludicrous.

His posts usually go into Hillary-promotion territory but even this seemed to much. Some of his nuggets of wisdom: stress the undemocratic nature of the caucus system. Check. 'Quietly' dismiss his wins in states with African American populations. Check (apparently she didn't read the quiet part of it). Try to get Obama to slip in the Debate about not wanting to debate and make sure this gets traction with the media. She has tried, hopefully the media won't oblige.

I don''t want to count wins that have not taken place yet but I would be curious to see how she completely ignores another round of elections. I thought we were supposed to belong to the reality based community here no?

Matt's post earlier today about what states count and why was excellent. I guess if Hillary wins it MUST count.

I know we who obsess and follow this process and read the blogs don't buy it but do you think everyone else does?

This spinning, transformation of reality into alternative universe for the sake of winning is NOT what democracy is about. I use to admire the Clintons and this has been a very sad education fro me.

Posted by latina for obama | February 11, 2008 11:06 PM

I was talking to my bi-racial uncle the other day and he said all twelve of his sons, ages 18-36, were planning on voting for Hillary Clinton. Uncle Pramana who is married to my Aunt Lokelani, thought it was because they had been raised to appreciate substance over style. I assumed since all but the youngest three, who are still in college, had graduate or professional degrees and were making the big money that it was more a case of noblesse oblige. If Senator Obama continues to lose people in his core demographic March and April are going to be very bad months for him.

Posted by another true story | February 11, 2008 11:18 PM

Reading the comments from Obama's side, you would never know that he won this weekend. It's all about attacking Hillary.

Maybe because according to Hillary, he didn't win anything this weekend at all.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 11:23 PM

If Senator Obama continues to lose people in his core demographic March and April are going to be very bad months for him.

Hahahahaha. Yeah. Obama's really hemorraging support at this point, eh?

Posted by asdf | February 12, 2008 12:20 AM

I am an Obama supporter, fired up and ready to go. This has been an interesting process personally for me. Pardon me as I indulge myself for a moment.

If you would have told me two, or even one, year(s) ago that the nomination process at this point would be a 50/50 contest between Clinton and Obama on the Democratic side (with Obama arguably pulling ahead and stunning Democratic turnout) and McCain all but locking up the Republican nomination I would have jumped for joy and thanked all that was good in the world that the GWB presidency was almost over. (I confess to liking them all for different reasons).

But something happened over the last six months: Obama completely won me over with his policies; his approach to governance; his careful avoidance of demonizing his opponents; his thoughtful, gracious, thinking-persons demeanor; and, not least, his symbolism both as a black man and post Boomer politician -- and on an on. My support for Obama even surpasses the excitement and enthusiasm I felt for Bill Clinton in 1992 (who I thought was the cat's meow and was the first president I was ever able to vote for).

Man, for awhile there, somewhere between the new year and February 5th, I sure did get focused about Obama overtaking HRC; to an unhealthy degree in my judgment. Possibly I overdosed on Andrew Sullivan and started taking in too much of the vitriol directed at HRC. I like to think that I came to my criticisms of HRC through honest, sound means and rational deliberation, but I can see now that I took it too far, that is, it became too personal. (For the record, I feel that while Sullivan is an HRC hater, I truly believe that he came to feel the way that he does for very good - for him - reasons that had to do with his hatred of both Bill and Hillary's politics, and not HRC's gender.)

Hillary supporters, I know that you are still hopeful but frustrated right now. You support a good candidate; one that would proudly have my vote to become our first female president. But I wouldn't be that sorry if she lost to John McCain, and I certainly won't be sorry when she loses out on the Democratic nomination to Obama.

That said, I think we all need to step back and let these next few weeks organically take shape. No one has won any of the upcoming elections yet (see Potomac Primary, HA, WI, etc). I take Ygelsias' point to heart that all of this speculation about Obama winning the rest of the February contests and Clinton leading in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania is based on hardly anything more than stale, scant, or non-existent polling and rank speculation. Actual citizens are going to decide this soon enough with their votes. I know the speculation, spin, and horse-race watching are engrossing political theater (if a little tiresome at this point - anyone else feeling a litte fatigue?), but I counsel that we take a step back, take a collective deep breath, and trust the remaining voters to decide this thing.

Also, let's try to remember that the worst president of my, and arguably your, lifetime (Nixon, the only other contender in my judgment, was quitting around the time I was born) is on his way out and three infinitely more able candidates are vying to take his place. Yeah.

Can't we all just get along?

Of course, if the superdelegates get to decide this thing, forget everything I said and prepare for battle. Hello streets of Denver.

Posted by indulgent | February 12, 2008 12:52 AM

Hey! I'll betcha dollars to donuts that Hillary
needs the dollars......not snacks! Best she keep
on her low carb diet...and keep the lucre pouring
in. Donuts keep you buying bigger and bigger
pantsuits and she doesn't buy 'em off the rack.
But if you do send donuts for the cause...Bill
will eat 'em all up....they won't go to waist!

Posted by magnum | February 12, 2008 1:28 AM

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS:

Bill and Hill are getting desperate. I think
you all know what that means. They will em-
barrass your party in a trice to regain
the White House. The big guns are again
deploying to hold the Clinton fort secure against
all challengers....even enlightened Democrats.
There will be blood. There is no chance that
this power-couple will "go gently into that
good night".....the past is prologue and deep
down you know it!

Posted by interferon | February 12, 2008 2:35 AM

@indulgent

That was a nice read, thanks for sharing. However for some enlightenment on the Sullivan hates Clinton's thing, that comes straight from the irrational when he was firmly entrentched in the VRWC. The most important thing to note is that Sullivan, while editor of the New Republic, was actually given credit for being the person who brought down Hillary's health care proposal. He published an article, I can't remember what was in it, but basically everything in it was false and I believe even the New Republic has disavowed it now. But he is still proud of that accomplishment. Yellow journalism at it's finest.

As for myself, I always had an extremely positive view of Bill Clinton and never could understand why people hated him and Hillary so much. I am a Black man and at the start of this campaign, I supported Edwards because I truly think poverty is an important issue and no other candidate has ever been so willing to make that issue a focal point of their campaign. I thought it took a lot of courage. I didn't suppot Obama because I work in the Environment and he was pretty assed backwards on the Energy Bill, which was a big opportunity to actually promote a better future. And I didn't support Clinton because I don't believe in American Dynasty.

But then Iowa happened. Iowa for the Clintons was like 911 to Bush and they lost it. The trickle started. First the lawsuit in Nevada to decrease turnout. Bill getting red faced and wagging his finger claiming he had nothing to do with it, just brought back bad memories that I repressed. Then Bill claimed that Obama's SEIU union supporters, the same union that the Clintons were courting just a week before mind you, were strong arming voters to vote for Obama. That story turned out to be a bald lie, because Bill claimed that if they said to people that if they did not vote for Obama that they could not get time off. But an enterprising reporter from the LV paper asked casino managers and they said flatly that it would be impossible because only supervisors have the ability to set schedules.

Next was the MLK comment. And the thing about the MLK comment that I think only Black people who were really plugged in saw was that Hillary made her comments about LBJ purposefully. It was a response/attack to a comment that Obama made and was calculated to try to get Obama to have a "black moment". You know, one of those "how dare you moments". Everyone in my family was shocked, but Obama didn't bite. Then there was the "false hope" comment and that was the last straw for me. I saw two people, Bill and Hillary, that I once had a lot of respect for totally diminished. And I saw a campaign that had the audacity to both race bait and destroy hope as their main campaign message. It was straight out of Lee Atwater.

That was it for me, I knew at that moment who I was supporting and it surely wasn't a Clinton and Edwards was just no longer looking viable. I was so worked up that I actually volunteered with the Obama campaign down in SC. I knew he needed the win and I wanted to do everything I could to help him win. I knocked on hundreds of doors. I got people registered to vote. I even drove people to the polls. And win we did. And that night, seeing just how excited people were and feeling that excitement myself, I was hooked. It should also be noted that the Clinton's should have had a strong advantage in SC because they locked in early support from a large number of Black ministers. But they couldn't deliver their congregations and it didn't help the Clintons any that the day after SC, Bill made the "Jesse Jackson" comment and an anonymous staffer called Obama "the Black Candidate".

And that was the day the Clinton's died for me. No matter what they do in the future, I will never be able to respect them again. And I do want to know about where that $5million came from, Dubai?

I have now fully and 100% drunk the Kool-Aid. I have a "Yes We Can" ringtone on my phone. Obama sticker on my car. I know my neighborhood organizer, we're having a BBQ. I believe we can make change. I believe we can fundamentally change the Democratic map, instead of just winning the coasts and praying on FL or OH. I believe we can finally have a President that can unite the country around a common goal, even if that only is just hope. Because I think after so many years of trench partisan warfare, we need to try something new. And yeah, those "uneducated" red staters that a certain Cinton supporter loves to put down, they are Americans too. And they matter. And they are also potential members of our new coalition.

Posted by Bubba | February 12, 2008 5:58 AM

BTW - It looks like Latino voters have noticed that Clinton's highest ranking Latina in her campaign was made the "fall person" for her failures. And they are not happy.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=554

Also, if you live in VA, DC or MD, go and VOTE!

Posted by Bubba | February 12, 2008 6:07 AM

I'll vote for Obama in the fall. I might even send money. But the smugness of his supporters is a big negative for him and the party. He doesn't have any control over that, of course. You guys do.

Regards.

Posted by luko | February 12, 2008 7:44 AM

. . . giving her the edge at the convention, where she seats Michigan and Florida, solidifying her win.

If that happens, I'm leaving the party. I've been active in, and financially supportive of, the Democratic party for over 20 years, and quite a few members of my family have been delegates to the convention, and have worked for Democratic gubanatorial and presidential administrations, as have I.

I was overseas on business the day of the primary in Florida. I did not reschedule the trip so that I could vote in the primary, because both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had endorsed the decision of the DNC not to seat the delegates.

Seating those delegates would be a hubristic power-grab on the order of the 2000 election-theft.

Oh, and beautifully said, Bubba.

Posted by Brautigan | February 12, 2008 8:19 AM

Hillary's getting more shrill by the minute. Democrats and fellow Americans protect your children and hide your pets.

Posted by Ken Starr | February 12, 2008 11:10 AM

Hillary's right -- caucuses are NOT democratic. Think of all the single moms, older folks, shift workers, etc. who have been disenfranchised in these caucuses. I'm not saying it's unfair to Clinton OR unfair to Obama...I'm saying it's unfair to the process. One day we will realize that a national primary is the only fair thing to do to ensure the idea of "one person, one vote!"

Posted by Michael | February 12, 2008 5:36 PM

A national primary is even more unfair, as its almost always weighted towards the politician with the most name-brand recognition. The best idea probably put forth on how to do primaries is the American plan put out of FairVote, which rotates large and small states in a way that states like California or Southern states don't merely anoint a person from their respective parties.

Posted by Sean S. | February 12, 2008 8:24 PM