Speaking Up

Item number 4 on Mark Halrpin's list of painful things Hillary Clinton knows -- or should know:

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

Pelosi has certainly said and done some things that have "signaled" this, as we say in DC, but I think that insofar as it's really true that she and "other leading members of Congress" think this, they need to communicate it more clearly.

After all, consider the situation in Pennsylvania. All indications are that a clear majority of Pennsylvania Democrats would prefer for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee than for Barack Obama to be the nominee. But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race -- that a miracle Obama comeback in PA would mean that Democrats enter May with a nominee and a financial advantage, whereas a sizable Clinton win in PA may mean that Democrats don't get a nominee until August and that that nominee, who'll almost certainly be Barack Obama anyway, will have a much tougher time winning in November. I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc. But people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

Comments

. . . unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

I agree. Though the media might eventually explain it well, once they run out of other storylines.

Here's the cherry on top of Matt's argument: Everyone talks about the convention being "in August." That's not the worst of it! The convention is LATE August -- Aug 25-28th. If we don't have a nominee till it's two months and change before the general election, we are absolutely toast.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 9:31 AM

Senator Obama is quite willing to throw his maternal grandmother under the bus in order to win the nomination. Not even Senator McCain or Senator Clinton is willing to go that far.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12728.htm

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 9:33 AM

Dear Matt: You realize you're talking about Democratic party leaders, right? The ones who've been so bold and decisive in Congress since taking control? This group is going to keep its heads as far down in their foxholes as possible until actually forced by events, like being on national TV at the convention, to make a decision. They know it's stupid, but their innate gutlessness will rule.
I bet some of 'em vote "present" on the first ballot.

Posted by JMG | March 23, 2008 9:33 AM

Dear Matt: You realize you're talking about Democratic party leaders, right? The ones who've been so bold and decisive in Congress since taking control? This group is going to keep its heads as far down in their foxholes as possible until actually forced by events, like being on national TV at the convention, to make a decision. They know it's stupid, but their innate gutlessness will rule.
I bet some of 'em vote "present" on the first ballot.

Posted by JMG | March 23, 2008 9:34 AM

My guess is that ostensibly pro-Obama leaders such as Pelosi and Gore believe they'll have a better chance of influencing and organizing superdelegates later in the game if they stay officially neutral while Clinton still has a shot, however remote.

If Obama rolls out all the biggest guns in the party before Pennsylvania, and still loses by 15%, their influence may be lessened when the unofficial superdelegate primary really starts happening.

Wait until May 6. After that, only a handful of smallish states and Puerto Rico remain. Unless Clinton pulls off a big upset in North Carolina, the pledged delegate writing will be on the wall by then. That may be when the pro-Obama big shots make their move.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 23, 2008 9:36 AM

They're locked in a bitter struggle that I predict will continue right through the Democratic convention, and then through the November presidential election. Next January President McCain will be giving his inaugural address, while somewhere else in America, Clinton and Obama will be holding their 1,387th debate, with the hostility level between them having reached the point where the debate consists entirely of spitting.

From Dave Barry. I think JMG is absolutely right, but maybe the party leaders could read the wise analysis of both Mr. Barry and Mr. Halperin and actually bring this race to an end before 2012.

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 9:39 AM

That McCain, whose policy position on almost every major issue run counter to those of the majority of the American public, is slightly ahead of both Obama and Clinton in many polls, is deeply troubling.

I know it won't happen, but I would like to see a deadlocked convention because I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about whether Hillary or Obama can win the presidency.

In this fantasy, the party would then turn to to Al Gore to unite both factions.

Posted by Rich | March 23, 2008 9:40 AM

Those who aren't busy celebrating Easter, and need some other miracle to celebrate, may enjoy checking this link as the day wears on:

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sofar08_lp/graphic

Remember the amazement when Obama crossed the 1-million-donor mark? He's about to cross 2 mil. Apparently a lot of people liked last week's speech.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 9:45 AM

Re Rich

Mr. Rich is absolutely correct. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can beat McCain because the country is not ready for a black or female president. The only hope is a deadlocked convention which turns to Al Gore who can win.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 9:46 AM

credible party leaders
Who would that be? Gore? Edwards? Carter? They all would be dismissed as being anti Clinton.

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 9:47 AM

Well, personally I don't care all that much whether it's St. Barack or Hillary Satanus, since I don't really like either of them.

But maybe all you nitwits should actually see what the *voters* say before you become overly wedded to your choice.

Pennsylvania is a very large state, and an important one, in that a Democrat that can't win PA is dead-meat in November.

Barack will massively outspend Hillary there, and he has a full month to work his speechifying magic. As I've said before, if he can stay within 20 points of her among non-black Democrats, then go ahead and nominate him without fear. But if he loses by much more than 20 points, the Supers should just flush him down the toilet.

That's the sort of thing the old "Reality-Based" Matt would probably be saying, but these days he's just a cheerleader without the miniskirt and pompoms...

Posted by RKU | March 23, 2008 9:53 AM

Richardson's call for party unity was the first step. Expect to see more of that. Obama is not far from taking the lead in superdelegates, as well as pledged delegates. Once he does that, what Matt calls "the structure of the race" will become much clearer.

In the meantime, don't listen to counsels of despair.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 9:54 AM

Obviously, the party leaders are hoping Obama bails them out by winning one of Clinton's hand-picked contests, despite the fact Clinton is picking the ones she thinks she can't lose.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 10:05 AM

In this fantasy, the party would then turn to to Al Gore to unite both factions.
Posted by Rich

Nothing has been better for Gore's image as a master politician than his removal from politics. Nominate him and everyone will start to remember that, while he's not Bush, neither is anyone else in the race.

Nominate anyone else and the same vetting issues arise.

Mr. Rich is absolutely correct. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can beat McCain because the country is not ready for a black or female president. The only hope is a deadlocked convention which turns to Al Gore who can win.
Posted by SLC

I'm sure that's what some analysts in every state with a black or woman governor or senator or other statewide office holder were saying just before the voters actually went and voted for them. And after, for that matter.

Clinton's woman problem is dwarfed by her Clinton problem.

And catering to the perceived prejudices of an electorate is no way to win an election. Rather, it's a way to be trampled as the voters blythely let history roll in--not thinking "I'll vote for the X" but "I'll vote for the candidate who's better on my issues." There's a real confusion about affirmative action here--that comes from top-down. Electing candidates comes from the bottom up. (To Clintons: No, really! That's how it works.) If voters are electing someone from group X, then voters are ready to elect someone from group X.

Pennsylvania is a very large state, and an important one, in that a Democrat that can't win PA is dead-meat in November.
Barack will massively outspend Hillary there, and he has a full month to work his speechifying magic. As I've said before, if he can stay within 20 points of her among non-black Democrats, then go ahead and nominate him without fear. But if he loses by much more than 20 points, the Supers should just flush him down the toilet.
--RKU

Hey, Mark Penn reads here!

Actually the entire country is NOT represented by Pennsylvania. Other states get to vote! In fact, IN and NC have more delegates at stake, and they vote only 2 weeks later. Not to mention there are many coalitions of winning states that can be put together in November, and putting it all down to one is a losing proposition.

No matter how many little fantasies are spun on "If Obama can't win PA by such and such, he's obliged to step down" by Hillary supporters, he can actually afford to lose every contest between now and June. Arguing that the winner of PA and PR is clearly the possessor momentum in late August and thus November is....well, in any introductory logic class, I don't think that would get a pass.

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 10:07 AM

By the way, I remember back when RKU was saying Obama had to win 1/3 of the white vote overall. Then it was he had to win 40%. Now apparently he has to keep it within 20 points, exclusive of non-Democrats, in one of Clinton's hand-picked states.

Those are some very movable goal-posts.

Posted by DTM | March 23, 2008 10:11 AM

"After all, consider the situation in Pennsylvania. All indications are that a clear majority of Pennsylvania Democrats would prefer for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee than for Barack Obama to be the nominee. But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race"

Spoken like a true Obama supporter.

The Democratic electorate prefers Clinton to Obama, but the rich goo-goos like Matthew know what's better for them.

The clear majority of Democrats of Pennsylvania want a President who'll push forward universal healthcare, not a cowardly candidate like Barack Obama who runs Harry and Louise ads attacking universal healthcare.

But trust fund "Democrats" like Matthew Yglesias know better than the Democratic electorate does. After all, if Matthew has a health problem, daddy's moneybags will get him treatment. So he's got no problem telling blue collar Dems to go fuck themselves.

Posted by Petey | March 23, 2008 10:12 AM

if he can stay within 20 points of her among non-black Democrats, then go ahead and nominate him without fear. But if he loses by much more than 20 points, the Supers should just flush him down the toilet.

This is simply ridiculous. If Clinton can't get 20% of the black vote should she be flushed down the toilet?

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 10:12 AM

Barack Obama's plan makes healthcare every bit as available and affordable as Hillary Clinton's plan, and, as a bonus, would have a far greater chance of actually being passed because of its lack of mandates for adults.

But don't let facts get in the way, Petey, as usual, when there's a chance to be self-righteous and insulting. There's no mystery as to why a reason-challenged thug such as you supports the Clintons.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 23, 2008 10:16 AM

To clarify, I think the country would elect a black or a female president, but both Obama and Hillary are too susceptible to being smeared. With Obama, it's as a result of the Wright connection, with Hillary, it's as a result of being a Clinton.

Posted by Rich | March 23, 2008 10:17 AM

Matthew,

You are fully aware that Clinton backers at this point can't be reasoned with. They are, like Bush dead enders, deranged psychopaths. Now, most Obama supporters aren't that much better - this whole nation has gone insane. And the United States will reap the whirlwind. I don't like it, but it's true. I only fear it will take the rest of the world with it.

Posted by LarryM | March 23, 2008 10:26 AM

Re LarryM

This is why the only hope to stop Senator McCains' march to the White House is for a deadlocked convention to turn to Al Gore. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are almost certain losers.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 10:42 AM

Matt,

Perhaps the voters in PA have considered those facts, and simply don't want to see someone anointed who chose to spend 20 years being associated with a hate monger. There's a difference between giving a speech at a location (like, say, Bob Jones University) and deciding to call someone your spiritual mentor.

It's also quite telling that Obama would rather throw his grandmother under a bus than fully renounce Wright. If any white man had a similarly racist association that he refused to disavow, his political career at the national level would be over. What this demonstrates more than anything else is something truly sad about the left: its willingness to hold blacks to a lower standard.

That says a few things about the left, and - in this context - about Yglesias. None of them good, either.

Posted by James Robertson | March 23, 2008 10:43 AM

This is simply ridiculous. If Clinton can't get 20% of the black vote should she be flushed down the toilet?

You do understand that far more whites vote than blacks, don't you? I understand the Obama campaign has encouraged people to look for racism in every comment that doesn't fellate Obama, but there's a difference between seeing the outcome of the white vote as more indicative because it's a numbers game and because one feels black people aren't as valuable.

Posted by john | March 23, 2008 10:44 AM

"If any white man had a similarly racist association that he refused to disavow, his political career at the national level would be over."

Yes, because Jerry Falwell was political poison to everyone who associated with him.

Posted by justaguy | March 23, 2008 10:49 AM

Mr. Rich is absolutely correct. Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can beat McCain because the country is not ready for a black or female president. The only hope is a deadlocked convention which turns to Al Gore who can win.

Maybe Al Gore can invent another internet where you can make your idiotic comments. Take your drive-by trolling elsewhere, thanks.

Posted by Throwing SLC under the bus | March 23, 2008 10:52 AM

"But trust fund "Democrats" like Matthew Yglesias know better than the Democratic electorate does. After all, if Matthew has a health problem, daddy's moneybags will get him treatment. So he's got no problem telling blue collar Dems to go fuck themselves."

My error. Matthew has no problem telling blue collar Dems that they're racist for voting their economic interests.

But Matthew has a lot more money than the Democrats who are voting for Clinton. So therefore, he must be right.

-----

Fucking trust fund "professional Democrats" who think American politics is all about their personal amusement and/or their personal advancement ought to pick another profession.

Posted by Petey | March 23, 2008 10:53 AM

john,
First, your statement is false, second it is vile.
My point was that creating some bizarre white/black voter test based on polling data is absurd.

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 10:55 AM

Yes, Matthew thinks American politics is all about his personal amusement Petey, and you think America's murder of an entire country is something we should all just forget about.

Posted by mad6798j | March 23, 2008 10:57 AM

But trust fund "Democrats" like Matthew Yglesias know better than the Democratic electorate does. After all, if Matthew has a health problem, daddy's moneybags will get him treatment. So he's got no problem telling blue collar Dems to go fuck themselves.-Petey

Spoken like a true Nader supporter.

Posted by Jake | March 23, 2008 10:57 AM

Watching the Democratic party infighting (supporters, pols, and surrogates alike) is an extraordinary study.

Is there some course available at super lefty universities that teaches you all how to completely fuck up?

Posted by DDP | March 23, 2008 11:00 AM

Re James Robertson

How about Senator McCains' enthusiastic welcome of the endorsement by the Reverend John Hagee, whose remarks about the Roman Catholic Church rival anything uttered by the Reverend Wright. Remember the Rum, Romanism and Rebellion comment by a James C. Blaine supporter which cost him the 1884 election?

Re Throwing SLC under the bus

Mr. Throwing SLC under the bus is politely encouraged to shove his comment up his posterior orifice.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 11:00 AM

justaguy:

Last time I looked, Falwell never ran for a national office, and none of the Republicans associated with him attended his church for 2 decades, had him officiate as their marriage, and had their children sit in his church every Sunday for many years.

But hey, thanks for playing.

Posted by James Robertson | March 23, 2008 11:01 AM

Yeah, McCain wasn't married by Falwell, he sought him out based on his political views. So, you're saying that its better to seek out someone who is racist and thinks that 9/11 was a act of God's justice as a political ally? That in doing so you aren't associating yourself with their political views?

Yeah, I get it, you're just throwing anything out there to paint Obama as uniquely tarnished as a candidate, but it doesn't really fly.

Posted by justaguy | March 23, 2008 11:08 AM

And the last time I looked Robertson, Falwell, Hagge were all invited into the White house under Bush. This was after Falwell and Robertson both said 911 was caused homosexuals and heathens.

Posted by bjd | March 23, 2008 11:09 AM

> To clarify, I think the country would elect a
> black or a female president, but both Obama and
> Hillary are too susceptible to being smeared.

The Radical Right /owns the media/ and has entire teams of people working in back room to develop smears which are then handed over to their captive media for broadcast and pumping. **Any and every** Democratic candidate will be smeared, and every time in a way that neither you nor the candidate saw coming. Get used to it and don't let that affect your decision.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | March 23, 2008 11:10 AM

I understand the "real structure" and most likely will vote for Hillary in April and look for the superdelegates to throw the race her way if Obama takes a pounding in the final primaries. I think both HRC and Obama would produce policies I like but am giving Hillary the nod for the following reasons:

1. Experience - not bogus 3AM phone call / sniper fire kind of experience but knowing the ropes, hitting the ground running and not having to make rookie mistakes kind of experience. Big edge to her for having Bill as her closest adviser.

2. Electability - Obama doesn't have the resume to overcome question marks like Jeremiah Wright. For all the pretty speeches, many people are simply not going to trust him enough to put him in the White House. You don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt for CIC. Obama also has a Jimmy Carter factor to overcome. Too much of a dreamer. Hillary may be castor oil to some but few are wondering if she secretly "hates America" or can handle the job. People understand medicine doesn't always taste good.

I'll pull the primary lever for Hillary and hope she can pull off the Hail Mary. Obama for Veep or SecState.

Posted by Undecided | March 23, 2008 11:10 AM

mad6798j,

You're being unfair to Petey. He doesn't think "America's murder of an entire country is something we should all just forget about;" rather, he thinks that "America's murder of an entire country" should be actively embraced as a way to get us UHC.

Making Petey the most morally repellent person who posts here regularly. And with clowns like Chris Ford and Al, that's saying something.

Posted by LarryM | March 23, 2008 11:13 AM

I'm saying that

-- attaching oneself to a racist maniac for 2 decades
-- exposing your children to said maniac
-- throwing one of the women who raised you under a bus rather than disavow him

is worse, yes. Especially given that McCain (and mind you, I dislike McCain fairly intensely) did not "seek out" Falwell. Nor did he "seek out" Hagee, who at least is somewhat more topical, given that he's alive.

When you find a national Republican figure who has attached himself to a racist demogogue for 2 decades - as Obama has - let me know. I expect you'll be looking for awhile.

As to "throwing something at Obama", I don't much care for his campaign, no. Then again, I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her, and I despise McCain based on his inability to read the rather simple text of the First Amendment.

Posted by James Robertson | March 23, 2008 11:14 AM

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc.

hahahahah. You are out of your gourd. Are you really that dense?

If Nancy Pelosi went to Pennsylvania and said "Hillary can't win. If you vote for her, you are just making it more difficult for Obama to win in November", Hillary would win the state by a bigger margin.

While I agree with those who say that the superdelegates aren't organized, that's not the reason why they haven't come forward. They haven't come forward because they know that the Democratic voters will not stop supporting Clinton.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 11:16 AM

According to the CBS poll, "Among voters who have followed the Wright controversy, only 14% said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result — with an equal 14% saying they were more likely to vote for him, and 70% saying it would make no difference."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/cbs_poll_has_mostly_good_news.php

That's out of a sample of registered voters, not just Democrats. It sounds to me like most Americans are less interested in nursing racial resentment than they are in moving on and solving our collective problems.

I'm not sure that's equally true of a sample of people who post on comment threads, though, so I think I'll move on myself.

Posted by Ted | March 23, 2008 11:19 AM

"If Nancy Pelosi went to Pennsylvania and said "Hillary can't win. If you vote for her, you are just making it more difficult for Obama to win in November", Hillary would win the state by a bigger margin."

I wouldn't expect that to happen. But if she and other leading Democrats started saying things like, "The primary voters have spoken, there is a clear winner and there is no chance of Clinton overcoming him in the remaining state contests." You would see a shift in the media narrative - from Hillary as the fighter to Hillary as the lost cause - that would dry up her fundraising and make her campaign deflate before too long.

Posted by justaguy | March 23, 2008 11:30 AM

If only we all could have blue-collar, working-class street cred of Petey, who we can only assume is a burly and calloused factory-worker from Cleveland who manages to troll any number of blogs on a near-constant basis even as he operates the heavy machinery on the assembly line.

...either that or he's an unemployed 20-something living in Mom and Dad's basement.

But who am I to judge?

Posted by Trust fund Democrat | March 23, 2008 11:35 AM

Ted, that Donor Counter link you used apparently may point to a counter that isn't working properly.

Which may explain how the campaign could conceivably be nearing 2 million without more of a buzz. Most likely explanation: the lack of a buzz is because it isn't happening.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 23, 2008 11:42 AM

Petey is an idiot, but at least he has a reason to vote for Clinton (however illegitimate). Everyone else I hear is "She's a woman" or "her last name."

BTW, you should hear the white people at Trinity United. They're outraged that people are suggesting that Wright hates white people.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 23, 2008 11:53 AM

Even after the whole Wright issue, Obama still has higher positives than both Clintons, up around 60%, compared to around 45% now for Bill Clinton. As much as FoxNews wants it to be a bigger issue, their audience isn't that large. Their audience is the mouth-breathing faction who bought Jonah Goldberg's book, so they would never vote for a Democrat and think Hillary Clinton is a Nazi communist anyway. Even after all of this, he moved up ahead of her in the most recent Gallup poll and he has the same margin against McCain that she does - in the worst week of the campaign for him. Despite all of the trolls on the internet and Steve Sailer posting his diatribes everywhere, no one who isn't munching on cookies in the FoxNews green room really cares. Even Chris Wallace has voiced annoyance over the media's fascination with stupid shit over Obama. This adds up to the fact that the media's attempts to smear him haven't actually made a real impact.

"1. Experience - not bogus 3AM phone call / sniper fire kind of experience but knowing the ropes, hitting the ground running and not having to make rookie mistakes kind of experience. Big edge to her for having Bill as her closest adviser.

2. Electability - Obama doesn't have the resume to overcome question marks like Jeremiah Wright. For all the pretty speeches, many people are simply not going to trust him enough to put him in the White House. You don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt for CIC. Obama also has a Jimmy Carter factor to overcome. Too much of a dreamer. Hillary may be castor oil to some but few are wondering if she secretly "hates America" or can handle the job. People understand medicine doesn't always taste good.

I'll pull the primary lever for Hillary and hope she can pull off the Hail Mary. Obama for Veep or SecState.

Posted by Undecided | March 23, 2008 11:10 AM"

I still have no idea what this whole "experience" thing is. He has a deeper legislative record in the Senate than her. Her experience in actually being involved politically in the Clinton White House mostly ended in 1994 in a disaster. After that, she tried to do things like kill S-CHIP until Kennedy and, of all people, Hatch had to show her it was their way or the highway while First Lady. She hasn't really done anything in the Senate. What is her experience? Plus, a lot of people actually think she hates America. A lot of Americans think she's secretly a communist who wants to socialize everything in sight. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh wants his listeners to vote for her in the primary? The GOP needs us to nominate their punching bag.

Also, if you actually have the time, go and watch the Wright videos. When he was talking about people jumping out of the Twin Towers to their deaths, he didn't seem to me to be a man who was happy Americans were dying, but instead a man who sounded on the verge of tears over innocent people being murdered on 9/11. You don't have to agree with the man's larger point about violence begetting violence, but the attempts to make him into Che have been a bit misplaced. People who were surprised by his comments just really don't understand black Protestantism in America.

Posted by Reality Man | March 23, 2008 11:54 AM

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc.

I am quite sure that if, in November, Democratic voters also vote for their second favorite candidate, then McCain will be a shoe-in.

As it is, Democratic voters are being told to settle for second rate health plans and second rate economic policies and second rate Iraq policies.

T%ere is a funny thing called "democracy," which means that the party should reflect the will of the voters. The voters in Pennsylvania - as well as those in Florida and Michigan - should be heard - and in full.

It is too bad for the Democratic establishment that their projected "Iowa New Hampshire" coronation did not occur. And if Obama went along with that, then he is a dork. And if the Democrats can't take a robust, contested convention, then they are dorks.

Posted by McGruff | March 23, 2008 11:57 AM

Ahhh yes Pennsylvania Democrats, don't vote for your preference. That sort of democracy is so last year!
Vote Obama since he is going to win no matter what!
Even if he has to insure that neither MI nor FL get a legit vote in order to win well Pennsylvania voters should further delegitimize the primary process to feed his big ol' Our Black Saviour Who Will End The War In Iraq ego.

Of course if it was all so clear and set in stone one would think that the super delegates would announce for him now and end the process.
Hmmmm, I wonder why they don't?
Maybe they think that Wright and revelations to come will prove so damaging to Hussein that he can't win the GE and in fact HRC is the better candidate. Especially to all those "typical whites" Obama the Racist is so disdainful of?
Maybe they figure that Hussein's lies about Wright kinda sorta disqualify him from leading our new newer new national conversation about race and whatever?
Maybe they just don't want to sign onto the suicide pact being pushed by the netroots' enfants terrible determined to self aggrandizement no matter the losses to the party?
Or maybe they and a majority of Americans are simply tired of the Obama fairy tales not to mention the racist campaign that he and his fluffers like Brazille have been waging since declaring "fairy tale" a racist slur?

So yeah Pennsylvania voters now is the time to service Matt and his investment in Barak Hussein Obama and your own wishes be damned.
Get with his Nuevo Stalinista program!
Screw democracy!

Posted by JaimieT | March 23, 2008 11:58 AM

JaimieT, it's a lovely day outside here. I hope it is where you are, too, and I recommend that you get some fresh air. And maybe engage in some self-examination.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 23, 2008 12:06 PM

Re James Robertson

The difficulty with Hagee is that McCain appeared on a stage with him when Hagee endorsed him. Hagees' anti Roman Catholic rantings are far more serious for a Rethuglican candidate then the racism of Robertson and Falwell. This is because because most of the Reagan Democrats are Roman Catholics who may well reject McCain when they find out about his close connection with Hagee and the latters' virulently anti-Catholic rhetoric. McCain can't win without retaining most of those Reagan Democrats.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 12:13 PM

JaimieT, it's a lovely day outside here. I hope it is where you are, too, and I recommend that you get some fresh air. And maybe engage in some self-examination.

What a nice little ad hominem.

And what makes you so swell?

Posted by Arone | March 23, 2008 12:16 PM

Undecided, what part of Clinton's campaign demonstrates that she doesn't make rookie mistakes? Or that Bill's advice keeps her from making mistakes?

They knew the 90s. Their adjustment to not-the-90s is barely started.

I'd point people toward Frank Rich's column in today's NYTimes. Clinton's Iraq speech got little coverage this week. One reason is that she isn't saying anything profound that engages the electorate on a grown-up level. She was still hoodwinked by Bush, still didn't think the Resulution to Use Armed Force was about using armed force, still it wasn't her fault....

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 12:23 PM

But if she and other leading Democrats started saying things like, "The primary voters have spoken, there is a clear winner and there is no chance of Clinton overcoming him in the remaining state contests."

Wouldn't make a difference. If Clinton ran out of money, didn't make a single media buy, the media ignored her, and all she did was drive around in a car getting to as many events as she could and keep her name on the ballot, she would still win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, be competitive in North Carolina (I think), and probably still win Indiana.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 12:25 PM

It makes me want to puke every time I hear some dumbass Clinton fan call him "Hussein." Who gives a shit what his middle name is? Firstly, your name is the one thing about you that you have no control over. And secondly, and more importantly, isn't using Hussein derogatorily saying you wouldn't vote for a Muslim person because he/she is Muslim? Is that really the side of history Clinton supporters want to be on- blatant xenophobia and racism?

Posted by ZednCu | March 23, 2008 12:27 PM

Thanks for reminding me I need to send Hillary some more money. And what Lambert at Corrente said:

"Why won't that stupid bitch quit?" watch
Submitted by lambert on Sun, 2008-03-23 12:20.

Great one from M.Y.. After quoting Mark Halperin without irony, we get this, also without irony:

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they’d be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc. But people won’t understand the dynamic unless it’s explained to them by credible party leaders.

Broder-esque, totally. The wise men need to sit Hillary down and explain the way things work to Hillary, because dammit, those pesky voters keep voting for her.

Is it something in the water down there?"

Posted by tdraicer | March 23, 2008 12:39 PM

Cal

Great comments!

Hillary is a fighter unlike some of the leaders of the Democratic Party and the media. They have no backbone!

Posted by EWard | March 23, 2008 12:42 PM

Who gives a shit what his middle name is?

Obama, apparently. He's the guy who first brought it up--as a selling point.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 12:43 PM

Undecided, what part of Clinton's campaign demonstrates that she doesn't make rookie mistakes? Or that Bill's advice keeps her from making mistakes?

Definitely some mistakes and miscalculations but I don't think she's run that bad a campaign, she's just run into a better campaigner. Bill was also a better campaigner. Hillary is not a natural candidate but she's shown great resilience. The best campaigner does not necessarily equal the best President.

The Clinton Adminstation got a lot of good things done. I certainly don't buy into this blue sky concept that the Republicans are gonna fall in line behind Obama.

Posted by Undecided | March 23, 2008 12:48 PM

How can Geraldo Rivera lose his career as a tabloid journalist for making up a story about being under fire, but Hillary can become President?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c

Posted by Patrick | March 23, 2008 12:49 PM

JaimeT, no one is saying Pennsylvania voters shouldn't vote for ther preferred choice. Of course they should do so. But we should keep in mind that even if Clinton wins big there, Obama has enough huge wins to his credit that he will still win the most votes, and the most delegates leading up to the convention.

Posted by mad6798j | March 23, 2008 12:57 PM

Obama continues "misinterpreting" Clinton comments - claiming they're racists or intended to offend Obama.
So - apparently, Obama wants the primary to continue while he continues smearing Hillary with lies.

And once again, Obama proves he couldn't handle REAL attacks from the GOP.

Posted by Margaret | March 23, 2008 1:29 PM

Fucking trust fund "professional Democrats"

Stop lying, Petey. Really, just stop fucking lying.

It makes you look like Mark Penn, who's a 'professional Democrat' in the sense that it's just a fucking moneyspinner for him.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 23, 2008 1:29 PM

>Obama has enough huge wins to his credit that he will still win the most votes, and the most delegates leading up to the convention.

And? The rules (which the Obama people keep bringing up in regard to MI and FL) aren't that the person with the most delegates gets the nomination, but the person with a majority of all delegates (including the Supers) gets the nomination. And the rules are also that the Supers can vote for anyone they like for any reason they like. They were put there to save the party from a candidate who looked good in February but not in August. Now maybe in August Obama will have shored up his poll numbers-or maybe in August buyer's remorse will have really set in. But Obama hasn't closed the deal, and Hillary still has a very realistic path to the nomination.

And if the Obama supporters really believed otherwise, they'd be a lot more relaxed about her staying in the race.

Posted by tdraicer | March 23, 2008 1:31 PM

Yeah, the stupid voters!

Who do they think they are?

If only they would listen to the wisdom and intellect of Matt Yglesias, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, and the media.

They should vote for who they are told to vote for instead of who they would like to vote for.

Do they think they are living in a democracy? Look at the patriotic cuban voters. They vote for who they are told to vote for. Heck, even the Russian voters know who they should vote for and are patriotic enough to follow instructions.

Stupid Pennsylvania voters!

Posted by Tom | March 23, 2008 1:36 PM

she's just run into a better campaigner.

No, she ran into a black liberal who was able to combine caucuses and the south. He's done nothing that makes him "better", I don't think.

no one is saying Pennsylvania voters shouldn't vote for ther preferred choice.

What Matt is saying is that if the Democrats made it clear that Hillary wouldn't win, Obama would be their preferred choice. But that's because Matt starts each day with a big pitcher of purple Koolaid.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 1:37 PM

Oh, and James Robertson? When we want advice from a wingnut fuckhead, we'll ask for it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 23, 2008 1:37 PM

To clarify, I think the country would elect a black or a female president, but both Obama and Hillary are too susceptible to being smeared. With Obama, it's as a result of the Wright connection, with Hillary, it's as a result of being a Clinton.

And for Max Cleland, it's a result of only having one limb.

You keep searching for that mythical candidate who can't be smeared by unsrupulous attacks from the right, Diogenes. Me, I'll support the candidate who I think would make the best president.

Posted by Jason F | March 23, 2008 1:42 PM

He's done nothing that makes him "better", I don't think.

With 'I don't think' as the operative phrase here.

Spare us, Cal. Clinton has campaigned in a way that narrows the electoral map to the states Kerry won plus Ohio. That's fucking stupid, given the Senate election calendar and the potential gains outside the 2004 blue states suggested by the 2006 mid-terms.

She has disparaged and demeaned the states she hasn't won, and set up repeated situations where she stands on a ledge and asks the voters to talk her out of jumping. That is no way to run a campaign.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 23, 2008 1:43 PM

I was an Edwards supporter - but considering Obama's propensity for race-baiting - we're now supporting Hillary.
Obama is dividing the Dem Party - and should get out now!!

Michelle Obama and Oprah first played the Race Card - then Obama with the media's assistance purposely misinterpreted Bill Clinton's comments as racist!!

Now - Obama has pulled the Communist Card!! - associating Bill Clinton with McCarthy.

The Clintons can no longer speak without being accused of racism or discrediting Obama.

One thing for sure - Obama is too thin skinned to be president.

Posted by Carla | March 23, 2008 1:44 PM

I'm probably a sucker too. After all blogs are in the end are about ad revenue not changing the country and posts like this no doubt tick reasonable people off and boost traffic.

But they also make me think that I shouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he is nominated.

Posted by Linus | March 23, 2008 1:49 PM

Obama continues his lies - claiming he was against the war "from the start."

Well - NO. He opposed the war when he couldn't vote - but voted with Repubs for 2 1/2 years to fund a war he "opposed" - until AFTER he became a presidential candidate.

Why does Obama LIE??
Does he think his supporters are that stupid?

Posted by Frank, PA | March 23, 2008 1:51 PM

Obama continues his lies - claiming he was against the war "from the start."

Well - NO. He opposed the war when he couldn't vote - but voted with Repubs for 2 1/2 years to fund a war he "opposed" - until AFTER he became a presidential candidate.

Why does Obama LIE??
Does he think his supporters are that stupid?

Posted by Frank, PA | March 23, 2008 1:51 PM

"When you find a national Republican figure who has attached himself to a racist demogogue for 2 decades - as Obama has - let me know. I expect you'll be looking for awhile."

Actually, I would argue that EVERY national Republican figure has attached himself to a racist demogogue for two decades: Ronald Reagan.

Mind you, Reagan's "racism" might be limited to a campaign stop in a certain town in Mississippi and a made-up story about "welfare queens", but he certainly had the demogoguery down pat. Even today the national discourse is coloured by his "evil empire" foreign policy, his support of the unworkable missile defense, and the war on drugs.

You might well argue that Reagan had many virtues that make a few out of context comments seem small in comparison, but - and this is the key point - so did Jeremiah Wright.

Posted by Splitting Image | March 23, 2008 1:56 PM

Every day I lose more faith in Americans. A member of Obama's staff said the Clintons are going after his patriotism (which was true), which is what McCarthy did (which was true). But let's forget that whole inconvenient truth part.

And Obama has explained his funding votes before, and called for a pullout in late 2005. Before Hillary did. Then, he proposed a plan for pulling out in early 2007. Before Hillary did.

I don't think either team has "played the race card" (save the Jesse Jackson comment). That was all the media.

"Obama continues "misinterpreting" Clinton comments - claiming they're racists or intended to offend Obama."

Find me a single quote of Obama claiming Clinton is a racist. One single quote.

Posted by We're Number 55 (in literacy) | March 23, 2008 2:01 PM

You mean the party leaders need to explain to the little people that they should vote for the candidate the political media selected some months ago? Even if those voters don't believe that candidate best represents THEIR interests and the best interests of the country?

Voters need to vote their preference. How else can those who run to represent them understand the "will of the people?" Even if your candidate doesn't win, your vote says something. And if your candidate does win, but with a smaller share of the vote than if his opponent's voters had just stayed home or voted against their interest because their "betters" told them to, well, then that candidate has an opportunity to learn something about what he will need to do, and to whom he must appeal, to win more broadly in the general election -- and, more important, to build and sustain real, effective, broadly democratic support once in office.

Obama supporter's appear to be signing onto the Rovian notion of democracy -- just get 50.1 and then tell the other 49.9 to go to hell, or, just pretend they don't exist.

That's worked so well for the nation over the last 8 years, hasn't it?

Posted by esmense | March 23, 2008 2:03 PM

"The Clintons can no longer speak without being accused of racism or discrediting Obama.

One thing for sure - Obama is too thin skinned to be president."

There is plenty that the Clintons could say without being fairly accused by Obama. McCain has spent the last month doing nothing but make one misstep after another. The way to attack Obama is to put McCain in the crosshairs and make sure Obama gets hit by the splash fire.

As it is, Clinton has gone on record saying that a man who doesn't know whose side Iran is on in the Iraq war has passed the threshold to be commander in chief.

And as far as being thin skinned is concerned, I'm nuch more concerned about leaders who don't learn from their mistakes. The Clintons have been told repeatedly that praising McCain over Obama is a turn-off and that having their surrogates deride their opponents' "significance" is another one, and yet they're still at it.

Why?

Posted by Splitting Image | March 23, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama is thin skinned? I guess I'm the only one who read the story (was it NYT?) about how Clinton's advisers/staff don't tell her any bad news because she doesn't want to hear it.

Posted by ZednCu | March 23, 2008 2:16 PM

So if I read this correctly, if neither candidate goes to the convention with enough delegates, and the supers end up voting for Hillary, it will be a perversion of the democratic process and a back room deal, with unelected delgates subverting the will of the people. But if these same superdelegates step in and try to stop the process before all of the primaries have even concluded, it's "for the good of the party." Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Posted by ChrisO | March 23, 2008 2:16 PM

No, she ran into a black liberal who was able to combine caucuses and the south. He's done nothing that makes him "better", I don't think.

Yeah, because it really doesn't take much to beat a Clinton with all their built-in advantages: money, name recognition, machinery already in place, former President proxy-campaigning for HRC.

All it takes is a liberal negro and some bullshit caucus rules, or something.

Posted by Face The Music | March 23, 2008 2:18 PM

James Robertson - Could you point to the exact quotes of Jeremiah Wright that make him a "racist maniac"? Also, you do realize that whatever quotes were put on TV were cherry-picked out of multiple years of sermons, right?

Posted by nbt | March 23, 2008 2:23 PM

Clingon's the one who used The Rev to woo superdelegates. That in itself, is race baiting. Add in Bill's chumminess with Rush and Fox (in case you didn't see it, btw - http://www.halturnershow.com/ About Sean Hannity and Me. . . . .On Wednesday, March 19, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party appeared as a guest on "Hannity & Colmes" to discuss the Obama / Reverend Wright controversy. During that appearance, Sean Hannity asked Shabazz if Barak Obama shouldn't be judged by his past affiliations with Reverend Wright, to which Shabazz replied by asking Sean Hannity "Should you be judged by your past association with Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi?"

This is why we're not talking about jobs and the economy or the war. Do you know NY's 5 year anniversary protest only got 2500 participants?

Posted by kravitz | March 23, 2008 2:31 PM

I'd simply put Yglesias's point on its head: given that voters in OH and, as it seems very likely, PA are going to vote for Hillary in impressive numbers despite their knowledge that it would in some real sense be better if Democrats could rally around the frontrunner, what does that say about just how entrenched is their opposition to Obama as the nominee? How likely is it that such voters will plunk down for Obama come November?

Posted by frankly0 | March 23, 2008 2:35 PM

pseudonymous in nc --

I don't care if every single hippie in Idaho and Utah shows up to vote in the general election, Obama isn't going to win the upper Mountain West -- anymore than McGovern did, despite the fact that he won just about every state West of the Mississippi in the primaries. This idea of "broadening the electorate" with the youth vote, Independent and moderate Republicans (while dismissing traditional Democratic constituencies) isn't a "new" kind of politics at all -- it's a repeat of an old political gambit that spectacularly failed.

It's true that parts of the Southwest are in play, and have been for several election cycles. But they are just as likely to go for either Democrat in November. As are the the Coastal Western states.

The real question for an Obama victory in November is this; will women show up in large enough numbers to offset the usual male gender gap?

If what seems to be the majority opinion of his online supporters that this important part of the Democratic constituency can be safely written off is held within the campaign itself, he's headed for trouble everywhere.

Posted by esmense | March 23, 2008 2:38 PM

The voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere still remaining should do just what I did when I voted in my primary--vote for who they want to be President. Period.

As an Edwards supporter, I am amazed by the Obama/Clinton war going on in the blogosphere right now. I have to say, however, it is primarily the Obama supporters that have become the super pain in the ass.

Everyday you see post after post in Kos, Americablog, Booman, etc. about how Hillary should quit now. Guess what? she won't, regardless of how many times you post such crap.

She has well over 1000 delegates, and NOBODY with over 1000 delegates has ever quit before the convention.

Suddenly Politico and Chris Matthews are the voice of reason. Please. If that's the case, I'll stay crazy, thank you. And I think following Tweety's lead brings on yet again another instance of 'The Tweety Factor', just like New Hampshire.

People don't like being told their vote doesn't count and they are dumb to vote for whom they want, so just cut that line of reasoning, thank you.

It's about time everybody stopped getting the vapors and hitting the fainting couch over every little thing anybody tangentially involved in any campaign say and concentrate on beating the GOP.
I don't care what Ferrarro or Wright said, and I really am getting tired of hearing it all rehashed ad nauseum everywhere.

Nuff said.

Posted by twit | March 23, 2008 2:49 PM

How likely is it that such voters will plunk down for Obama come November?

I don't really care who "such voters" vote for in November. Obama has won the right to lose just like every other white candidate in history. If he wins, GREAT. If you help him lose, we'll return the favor in 2012, 2016 and 2020.

Any way you slice it, sucks to be you.

Posted by Face The Music | March 23, 2008 2:52 PM

Twit,

If the situation was the reversed, in which HRC's ahead in delagates, number of states won, popular vote and fundraising, do you honestly think that the powers that be would allow Obama to still run?

Posted by Micheline | March 23, 2008 2:58 PM

If Obama had ever lost 12 contests in a row, the press would be giving him the Huckabee treatment. Is there any doubt about that?

Posted by Monster | March 23, 2008 3:00 PM

All it takes is a liberal negro and some bullshit caucus rules, or something.

I believe they prefer to be called African Americans. But yes, pretty much. The other assist is proportional delegate assignment.

This is not to say Obama isn't a likeable guy,but it sure wasn't superior campaigning skills that got him here. It was his race and the support that won him in the southern states.

given that voters in OH and, as it seems very likely, PA are going to vote for Hillary in impressive numbers despite their knowledge that it would in some real sense be better if Democrats could rally around the frontrunner, what does that say about just how entrenched is their opposition to Obama as the nominee?

Add in West Virginia, Kentucky, and probably Indiana--as well as around 80% of the white voters in North Carolina. That was pretty much my point as well.

Yglesias is so deep in the Koolaid he really deludes himself that the people would rally around Obama, and wonders why the Democratic leadership doesn't explain things fully (because of course, Clinton supporters are uneducated and stupid, in Yglesias's bizarro world) so that they get on the bus and vote for Obama.

In fact, the superdelegates,having a few more braincells than Yglesias, know full well what's going on, and that's why they are silent. They are afraid to give the nomination to Clnton, who they dislike, because of the African American reation. But they know full well what happens to the Democrats when they ignore or disdain their white voters.

I don't know what they'll do,but certainly they aren't jackwitted enough to think that white and Hispanic Democrats will start voting for Obama just because the party leadership tells them its' better for the country. Quite the contray,in fact.

Posted by Cal | March 23, 2008 3:06 PM

The powers that be are going to do what they are going to do after the votes are in, that's the way it works.

If you think they are going to run to Hillary, you are crazy--they are looking for a way not to.

The Clintons have NEVER been the favorite of The Village--they've been regarded as outsiders.
You can tell the media and most of the establishment pols (Kennedy, Dodd, Pelosi, et