Dropping Out

On television, of course, it's difficult to make a nuanced point but it occurred to me when discussing the whole "should Hillary drop out" issue that a decision to end her campaign needn't deprive the Ellen Malcolms of the world their chance to register a vote for the first viable woman presidential candidate. If she announced that she was done campaigning on Monday, she'd still be on the ballot in West Virginia on Tuesday -- and in Kentucky a week later -- and she'd still probably win both states.

Folks are still out there voting for Mike Huckabee, after all. The difference is just that Huckabee isn't actively campaigning for their votes. He's endorsed John McCain and receded a lot from public view. And conversely, receding a bit and starting to transition to playing a constructive non-presidential role in Democratic politics is available to Clinton even if she doesn't drop out. What the party needs from her, fundamentally, is for her to avoid spending the time between this weekend and Puerto Rico launching a constant barrage of attacks on Obama. That's consistent with dropping out or with staying in the race, and dropping out is consistent with her most loyal voters still voting for her anyway. The specific modalities aren't very important, it's about shifting the national discussion to the problems with McCain.

Comments

"What the party needs from her, fundamentally..."

...is to win the remaining primaries and the nomination.

But of course, Matthew has never been particularly interested in strengthening the Democratic Party. Yglesias just wants the Republicans to move enough so he get can get back to voting for the Mitt Romneys of the world.

Posted by Petey | May 11, 2008 4:15 PM

Petey,

Just shut up, okay? I'm starting to retroactively question my support for John Edwards because it was once congruent with your position and you're making that look like a very bad move. I'm not sure what alienating your potential allies is doing for you, but you've succeeded admirably and can rest on your laurels now.

Worse than all that, you're making me dread seeing your name in a comment thread more than I dread seeing Nate's in a thread over at Ezra's, and that's saying a great deal.

Posted by DMonteith | May 11, 2008 4:37 PM

Matt,

Also it would be nice if everyone got a pony.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 11, 2008 4:42 PM

What DMonteith said...

Posted by Hassan | May 11, 2008 4:43 PM

The current Petey is a Republican troll trying to sow dissent in Democratic ranks. Repeat this whenever he makes a comment to spread the word.

Posted by Zephyrus | May 11, 2008 4:50 PM

What Hassan said...

Posted by Mike | May 11, 2008 4:52 PM

It's not a sign of Obama's strength that his supporters have been saying relentlessly since New Hampshire, 'oh, she should just drop out - she's only hurting the presumptive Democratic nominee.' Calls for Hillary to drop out only spotlight Obama's weaknesses in a general election campaign. He has not found a way to move beyond the latte sipping voter block and appeal to 'Reagan Democrats.' All the wishful thinking and Hillary-bashing does not change that reality. If Obama's going to win it, he should damn well WIN IT. Seal the deal, Obama.

Posted by Nathan | May 11, 2008 4:54 PM

Petey's real issue is his pie fixation.

Tout comprendre est tout pardonner.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 11, 2008 4:56 PM

Right... but then, by the same logic, shouldn't Clinton 'WIN IT'? Or does she win by default if neither get the nom?

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 11, 2008 5:12 PM

Nathan:
And how is Hillary going to win with out the AA vote? See where this is heading? And who says the "Ray-gun Democrats" are even in the Democratic Party any more? When, exactly, did Obama become an elitist? What, exactly, does Hillary have in common with the every man that Obama doesn't?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 11, 2008 5:22 PM

Nathan and others: there are two viable schools of thought about Obama and "Reagan Democrats" (although I happen to agree with Frank Rich that we're overestimating the number of Democratic voters that have been cryogenically frozen in stasis since 1980).

One is that Clinton did him a favor by putting this weakness on display, so that he could do something about it. The New York Times, ever trying to come to Clinton's defense and aide, has an article to this effect today.

The other view, and I happen to think this carries quite a bit of merit, is that Clinton created this weakness. In the simplest terms, blue collar rural whites wouldn't know that they weren't supposed to like Obama if she hadn't told them so. It's all self-reinforcing: she attacks him as an elitist, the media picks up the characterization and runs with it. The media talks about Obama's problem with rural blue collar whites endlessly. Rural blue collar whites hear this and, whether true or not, naturally assume that there must be some substantive reason why an Obama presidency would not be beneficial to them and that they should not back Obama.

The Republicans always try to paint the Democrat as an elitist. They would do the same to Clinton. But this year, coming from a Republican, it sounds like a desperate attempt to cling to power from a party with the lowest approval ratings in the history of polling. Coming from the Clintons, the idea has now stuck with about 45% of Democrats. That's a god damn disaster.

Posted by TH | May 11, 2008 5:27 PM

Nathan:

How you can post that Obama needs to seal the deal; when he is the presumptive nominee is beyond me. He is going to lose WV, he will lose KY, and he will win OR and MT and SD and be the nominee. There is virtually no way she will win the nomination EVEN if MI/FL are seated as she wants by her numbers.

Obama has proven he can take a punch. He's proven to be able to learn and adapt on a campign. He's been put through his paces.

And he's been winning.

HRC went into this with more money, more delegates, and name recognition. This skinny black dude came from NOWHERE and started winning against the couple at the heart of the democratic party Sen. Clinton and President Clinton.

That is amazing. And speaks to the level of candidates we have, as democrats, fielded this year.

Right now Obama has 40 to 50 million he's sitting on that could be put to work defining McCain. Money he NEEDS to spend and ads he has apparently already cut but can not be run until Sen. Clinton is out of the picture.

May 20th the Obama team is going to declare victory and go to town defining McCain. IMO, she has 8 days to negotiate something for her campaign. But it's clear who the nominee will be and he won fair and square.

HRC had a chance for a coup the last two months w/Obama's back against the wall dealing with Wright.

As a supporter you should ask yourself why SHE couldn't seal the deal? She had a path that the media approved and would have given supers cover if she executed it; but she didn't.

That's a problem.

Posted by Rhoda | May 11, 2008 5:29 PM

Petey's real issue is his pie fixation.
Tout comprendre est tout pardonner.

Fan-fucking-tastic. Thanks for the script.

Posted by Curly | May 11, 2008 5:49 PM

If Hillary were only attacking windmills and not Barack Obama, I wouldn't be so upset at her and her campaign; a massive electoral test run would be good for the party as well as Obama. But there is no evidence she is capable of such a thing, only conjecture that mythical creatures labeled "party leaders[sic]" will allow her to continue her charade and alleviate her debts on the condition that she stays classy.

I suggest we wait for a week to pass where she is able to resist race baiting before we consider this hypothesis viable.

Posted by Client #11 | May 11, 2008 5:56 PM

A few days ago Matt wrote that he was tired of this primary season and wanted it to end. Now Matt gets want he wants.

Of course, the end of the primary season means the beginning of the general. I expect Matt will be sick of the general pretty quick, too. The irony here is that all the Big Media folk love presidential campaigns; they all want it to begin two years out. But as soon as it starts, they want it to end, they get tired, and bored. They daydream of better, more elevated discourse that happened in their childhood.

So... on to the general election. Get ready for the less than edifying issues that come up. Wait for Big Media Matt to get tired, to lament the halcyon days when two Democrats raised the level of discourse, and fought each other to a near draw. (You think I'm kidding about the level of discourse, just wait until you see what Saint John throws at Barack.)

Should Hillary drop out? I still have my Oregon ballot sitting here on my desk, uncompleted. Matt got his chance to vote. I want mine.

Posted by PDX Pete | May 11, 2008 6:16 PM

Should Hillary drop out? I still have my Oregon ballot sitting here on my desk, uncompleted. Matt got his chance to vote. I want mine.
Dude, it's the right to vote. It's not the right to cast the decisive ballot.

Posted by Curly | May 11, 2008 6:26 PM

From Bloomberg:

Obama Overtakes Clinton in Race for Superdelegates (Update4)

By Catherine Dodge and Julianna Goldman

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama won endorsements from five superdelegates yesterday and one today, erasing rival Hillary Clinton's long-held lead in backing from party officials and lawmakers.

Obama now leads Clinton in the popular vote and the number of pledged delegates and superdelegates who will decide the nominee at the party's convention in August.

Clinton has seen her superdelegate advantage steadily erode since the nominating contests began Jan. 3, when Obama won the Iowa caucus. At that time, Clinton had more than twice as many superdelegates as Obama. With Obama's latest endorsements, he has 277 superdelegates to Clinton's 274.5, according to a Bloomberg tally based on lists and public statements from both campaigns.

``It's a crucial psychological milestone,'' said Anthony Corrado, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who specializes in elections. ``From the very beginning, Senator Clinton has held the superdelegate lead and it had been widely expected that would be her ace in the hole.''

With six contests left to allocate 217 pledged delegates, neither candidate can claim the nomination without superdelegate support.

Anybody want to claim Hillary is going to take all the superdelegates now?

Meanwhile, Hillary changes her tactics:

New group with Clinton ties pushes a dream ticket By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers 4:21 PM CDT, May 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.

But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton's — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.

Meanwhile, this appears to be the tack she's going to take to continue the fight:

From CNN:

Analysis: Could Clinton land the VP nomination?

By Carl Bernstein
CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- Friends and close associates of both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now convinced that, assuming she loses the race for the presidential nomination, she is probably going to fight to be the vice presidential nominee on an Obama-for-president ticket.

Carl Bernstein writes that Hillary Clinton's campaign recognizes that it faces an uphill battle.

Clinton "is trying to figure out how to land the plane without looking like surrender," a prominent figure in the Obama camp said Friday. This means, in all likelihood, bringing her campaign to a close in the next few weeks and trying to leverage her way onto an Obama ticket from a position of maximum strength, said several knowledgeable sources.

A person close to her, with whom her campaign staff has counseled at various points, said this week, "I think the following will happen: Obama will be in a position where the party declares him the nominee by the first week in June. She'll still be fighting with everybody -- the Rules Committee, the party leaders -- and arguing, 'I'm winning these key states; I've got almost half the delegates. I have a whole constituency he hasn't reached. I've got real differences on approach to how we win this election, and I'm going to press the hell out of this guy. ... Relief for the middle class, universal health care, etc.; I'm Ms. Blue Collar, and I'm going to press my fight, because he can't win without my being on the ticket.' "

Another major Democratic Party figure, who supports her for president, agreed: "It's not going to be a quiet exit. ... Obama has got a terrible situation. He marches to a different drummer. He won't want to take her on the ticket. But he might have to, even though the idea of Vice President Hillary with Bill in the background at the White House is not something -- especially after what [the Clintons] have thrown at him that he relishes. I believe she'll go for it."

In other words, if she can't torpedo his chances to get the candidacy, she will continue to try to torpedo his chances to be ELECTED by being on the ticket with him - thus guaranteeing a Republican victory in November (aided by the war bounce McCain will get from the Iran war Bush will start).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 11, 2008 7:19 PM

Folks are still out there voting for Mike Huckabee, after all.

And Ron Paul. Do not forget Ron Paul. And he is actively campaigning for their votes.

Posted by Glaivester | May 11, 2008 7:19 PM

In fact, it's likely worse than I said (it usually is, as Malcolm Reynolds said.)

If Clinton DOES get on the ticket, and the ticket is elected, Clinton can then undermine Obama - a sort of reverse Dick Cheney - for the next four years, then try to oust him in 2012. With both Bill and Hillary working against him, how far is Obama going to get in being effective (assuming he would be, anyway)?

This woman is a disaster for the Democrats. THIS is how the Democrats are going to manage to lose yet another should-have-been-a-slam-dunk election!

You gotta laugh!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 11, 2008 7:44 PM

Hillary wants to go out in a blaze of glory like James Cagney in "White Heat". She's drunk with delusions of grandeur.

Uncommitted superdelegates sit deaf, dumb, and blind while Hillary engages in character assasination, race-baiting, and fear-mongering. They need to stop sucking their thumbs and publicly endorse Obama now.

Each day Hillary stays in this race, she strengthens McCain's chances in Nov.

Pelosi, Reid, Howard Dean, James Clyburn, Rahm Emmanuel, Barbara Boxer, Mary Landrieu, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Mario Cuomo should hold a joint news conference and announce they are endorsing Obama.

It's time to end Hillary's reign of terror.

Posted by jerry | May 11, 2008 8:37 PM

From a Machiavellian point of view, one could put Clinton on the ticket, give her six months of glory and then demand her resignation after catching her in some scandal. No major damage, new VP, and exit Comrade Clinton.

Posted by millicent | May 11, 2008 8:43 PM

She's not going to be the VP. If she wanted to be the VP, she would have stopped the nonsense already, and she certainly wouldn't be race-baiting (or, at least, she would have apologized for the appearance of race-baiting, called it a gaffe, whatever.)

She may still try to wreck his candidacy (or, in her view and Petey's, to save the party from itself.) And perhaps she'll even succeed, though I tend to be more optimistic than that. But she'll have to do it from somewhere other than the VP slot.

Posted by NoahB | May 11, 2008 8:46 PM

Every time Petey posts, I am reminded of the tedious child who came up to me at a birthday party, fixed me with two big blue eyes and murmured, sotto voce: "I went pee-pee".

Posted by morzer | May 11, 2008 8:46 PM

Well, gee, the kid was just trying to be pleasant.

Posted by kyle | May 11, 2008 9:02 PM

Hmmmm, not sure about the kid being pleasant, but it certainly sounds like a junior version of Petey.

Posted by leocalasari | May 11, 2008 9:10 PM

Shorter Petey: Hillary absolutely has to win because I bet my bank account and nuts that she was going to be the nominee on Intrade, and if she screws it up, then I am going to be a eunuch, broke, and systematically buggered by large angry men to whom I owe money.

Posted by jasmine | May 11, 2008 9:18 PM

That Cheney has influence is entirely due to his status as Dick Cheney, mentor to The Idiot. As VP he has almost no duties and little power. If HRC becomes VP there's no precedent for expanding the power of the VP and she can go hibernate if she wants. She'd have more power as a Senator.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 11, 2008 9:22 PM

If she announced that she was done campaigning on Monday, she'd still be on the ballot in West Virginia on Tuesday -- and in Kentucky a week later -- and she'd still probably win both states.

well, of course. the Clinton campaign, and its supporters, haven't made an honest argument for her since February. it's been one bullshit hand-waving falsehood after another.

pie script - be sure to also check out the Balloon Juice, Obsidian Wings and Washington Monthly scripts, while you're there!

Posted by cleek | May 11, 2008 9:44 PM

Boy, I see the caricature of Hitlery rules supreme on this site. Whine on, haters!

Posted by scottreads | May 11, 2008 9:59 PM

Great new blog on politics and the like:

www.rovenger.blogspot.com

Posted by weinberg | May 11, 2008 11:09 PM

Hillary is claiming that anything can happen between now and June or August, and she wants to be around in case it does.

What I don't understand is why she would have to actively campaign. If something bad does befall Obama, she will be there, and super-delegates will be able to vote in August. Both Obama and Hillary are currently within the range where supers could throw the election to the other candidate.

Either Hillary doesn't understand this math, or wishes to maximize her math before dropping out, or she wants to be the active force which causes the bad things to befall Obama. I think it is a combination of the last two, but given her past campaign mismanagement, who knows.

Posted by tomj | May 11, 2008 11:30 PM

"If HRC becomes VP there's no precedent for expanding the power of the VP and she can go hibernate if she wants. She'd have more power as a Senator."

Wrong. Hillary could do serious damage to Obama as VP.

As for expanding the power of the VP, Dick Cheney had his connections and his authority as VP. That was sufficient to put the US at war in Iraq, and damn near has us in a war with Iran. Clinton could do at least as much damage, maybe more since she has a former President backing her up. And she has connections with the same right wing clowns Cheney does, due to her membership in "The Family", the right wing Christian cult that includes many senior Republican Senators and Congressman.

Not to mention the Clintons' connections with certain wealthy Zionist billionaires and their connections with the Israeli right wing.

Oh, yeah, she could screw over Obama royally.

She could also just be a pain in the butt by publicly disagreeing with him on practically everything once she's elected. Paint everything he does as wrong and try to get the DNC on her side for her run in 2012.

What's he going to do about it? Fire her?

If he puts her on the ticket, it would be a good reason to believe he's not Presidential material - because he's nuts.

Just as some crowd of Clinton bozos is starting a push for her to be the VP, the Dems need an "Anybody But Clinton" push to prevent that.

Matt? Want to start it? Maybe recommend Edwards just to make Petey happy?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 11, 2008 11:42 PM

Maybe the 26-year-old with little life experience is correct, and Hillary should start her transition now. Namely, to running against President McCain in 2012.

Posted by TLB | May 12, 2008 12:14 AM

I think Obama likes being alive too much to give the Vice Presidency to someone who wants to be President really bad. Only a fool would give such a person a position where they can become President if Obama dies.

I'm not naming any names here, of course. Just making a generic statement about the type of person Obama would not want as President.

Posted by Glaivester | May 12, 2008 1:00 AM

Uncommitted superdelegates sit deaf, dumb, and blind while Hillary engages in character assasination, race-baiting, and fear-mongering. They need to stop sucking their thumbs and publicly endorse Obama now.

I don't know if you've noticed, but they've been doing so all week already.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 12, 2008 2:28 AM

"...is to win the remaining primaries and the nomination.

But of course, Matthew has never been particularly interested in strengthening the Democratic Party. Yglesias just wants the Republicans to move enough so he get can get back to voting for the Mitt Romneys of the world.

Posted by Petey | May 11, 2008 4:15 PM"

Considering Edwards pretty much admitted that he voted for Obama in NC, I guess Edwards was never interested in "strengthening the Democratic Party." You have to love how "strengthening the Democratic Party" = mandates without an enforcement mechanism. Petey seems to think he's more Catholic than the Pope.

Posted by Reality Man | May 12, 2008 2:56 AM

Edwards: done
HRC: done
Petey: done

Edwards is the only one who has shown anything resembling class about it, so far.

Posted by dem | May 12, 2008 3:28 AM

Gee Matt, Obama hasn't won.
What part of that do the ObaIdiots not understand?
OBAMA HAS NOT WON!
Nor has HRC.
That is why the race goes on.
Your sole argument is that Obama is the most likely nominee and so HRC should drop out.
Sadly for Obama that is not how the democratic process works.

Gee, remind me again of how back when HRC was the presumptive winner you called for Obama and Edwards to drop out...
And if McCain takes a lead in the polls over Obama will you call for Hussein to drop out?

Now can we begin to discuss the racism that drives 90+ % of AA's to vote Obama? You know, that honest dialogue that Obama called for during a past iteration of his Wright lies?

Posted by JTHB | May 12, 2008 4:18 AM

JTHB: Class. Real Class.

This is a Clinton supporter, folks. Look closely.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 12, 2008 6:05 AM

Dropping out worked out well for me in HS. It worked out well for Bill too. Gates that is.

Posted by bago | May 12, 2008 6:33 AM

Cinton as VP would be like Jefferson as Adams' VP. She would actively but clandestinely undermine his administration to set up her candidacy in the next election. Obama would have to be high on several different categories of drugs to agree to that scenario.

Posted by Led | May 12, 2008 8:08 AM

She wants Obama to lose so she can say 'look what happened because you went for the black man. Luckily, I'm available in 2012 to run against a man who will be 80 in his second term'.

Get the bitch off the pitch.

Posted by James | May 12, 2008 8:32 AM

bago:
Bill Gates dropped out of MY's alma mater, not high school.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 12, 2008 8:45 AM

James @8:32AM,

The language you are using is offensive and sexist.

Posted by Micheline | May 12, 2008 9:35 AM

Micheline... the ObaIdiots have been using their charges of racism to cover their sexism since before Day 1. And they have been aided and abetted by most of the (male) PunIdiocy. Funny how we never hear about Hussein "pimping" his daughters on the campaign trail.
Just another reason to oppose the Obama Hate Machine.

The fact that Obama consistently loses working class white voters is not because he is black it is because he is correctly seen by them to be an elitist snot who looks down his nose at them.
His SF remarks continue to have an impact because the voters clearly see that those words truly reflect who he is.
Just as his 20 year support of Wright tells us all we need to know about his and Michele's politics of racial grievance.

There are not enough AA's and "progressives" to elect Hussein. Like Jackson's Rainbow Coalition he will lose as he has to date among the broadest base of Dem voters.
Let us be perfectly clear:
the majority of Americans are not willing to turn the Presidency into yet another Affirmative Action program.
We will not elect Obama just because he is black and serves a thin gruel of Hope soup.

Posted by JTHB | May 12, 2008 9:55 AM

JTHB
I'm not sure whom you're speaking for. Let ME be clear--I want no part of your "we". My main problem is with the reactionary national security policy of your candidate. I nothing to do with her being a woman, or Barack being an African-American. I'm reminded of glass houses with your comment.
But I agree, the "b" word does nothing to raise the level of discourse.

Slightly OT, but I have been so confused lately about my position in demographics--I'm in the military, but does my education totally negate my "hardworker" status? Damn it.

Finally, thanks, Curly, for your comment. No one is saying that the primaries will not continue. I absentee vote in New York in the General Election. I don't scream "disenfranchisement!" because my vote is not counted if there is no way for the other candidate can catch up. But I can, and will, still vote. I just know it probably won't matter.

Posted by colleeniem | May 12, 2008 10:18 AM

JTHB,

Please do not call Obama supporters Obaidiots, since your candidate is behind in every metric, it would be helpful that you don't engage in name calling since she will need their support should she be the nominee.

I am getting sick and tired of hearing both Clinton and Obama supporters crying victim when both have in one way or another have contributed to the acrimony.

As for the white working class vote, while I think that group is very important, I think that it should be pointed out that the Democratic party is the sum of white working class, African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, gays, women and Native Americans, etc. This discussion about the white working class has been somewhat offensive because it implies that other groups don't count except for white working class voters. And what makes it silly is that even though HRC has more or less done well with the group, she is still losing. Obama is winning even without the overwhelming support from this group so we need to get a grip what’s on the ground.

Posted by Micheline | May 12, 2008 10:43 AM

And let's see... Obama loses the Jewish vote, the Latino vote, the older vote, all in addition to the white working class vote. To cite the latter without enumerating all the former is not to dismiss or demean them it is simply meant to be topical.
Believe me Micheline when I want to be dismissive or demeaning you will not need to invent your silly PC indignation.
HRC has not "more or less" done well with the white working class she wins them by 60%. That is a landslide in political terms. Get real.
Obama is winning chiefly because he out organized and out maneuvered HRC in the caucus states. Period. His victory is magnified by the byzantine DNC rules.
But his narrow win is still a win and I've no doubt he will be the nominee and I've no doubt HRC will not be VP candidate.
Which is good because it will make Obama's inevitable defeat in the GE that much sweeter.
Move over Naderites, the ObaIdiots are crowding on your bus!
It will be worth four years of Granpa Munster to put an end to Hussein's pretensions.

Posted by JTHB | May 12, 2008 11:14 AM

JTHB, unless you can show that Obama polls weakly among democrats in a race against a republican, none of your claims matter.

The primary contest is about who can get enough supporters to give the candidate delegates, not over which candidate do well amongst certain demographics when put up against a primary opponent. A basic inability to understand this simply fact is why Hillary can't win the nomination.

Posted by Tyro | May 12, 2008 11:19 AM

It should be noted that Obama has won more primaries than Clinton. Also your contention about caucus states doesn't explain his lead in the popular vote. As I said HRC has done well with working class whites that has not translate in being in the lead. Moreover, the point I was making about vaunting one group at the expense of another is that it is pointless because you end up alienating other groups. You also make this assumption that because there are groups have been voting overwhelmingly for HRC they therefore won't vote for Obama which is really flawed thinking. The only conclusion that I can come to is that you want Obama defeated because you don't care about Democratic values. If HRC ends up being the nominee I will vote for her because I just a damn Democrat in the White House!!!

Posted by Micheline | May 12, 2008 11:28 AM

"The primary contest is about who can get enough supporters to give the candidate delegates, not over which candidate do well amongst certain demographics when put up against a primary opponent. A basic inability to understand this simply fact is why Hillary can't win the nomination.

Posted by Tyro | May 12, 2008 11:19 AM"

Wow, you mean people don't like being forced into little demographic boxes by the Mark Penns of the world? Shocking! I'm Asian-American and from the Northeast, so I'm supposed to support Clinton, but I'm also well-educated, young and liberal, so I'm supposed to support Obama. I'm so confused!

It's a bit odd how Clinton and Penn don't seem to know the difference between this primary, where trying to get the most votes and delegates is the goal, and the Chappelle's Show skit "The Racial Draft." To the two of them, we are all only relevant as a sum of our demographic parts. It's insulting.

Posted by Reality Man | May 12, 2008 11:37 AM

Which is good because it will make Obama's inevitable defeat in the GE that much sweeter.

so, you're not even a Democrat.

nice concern trolling!

Posted by cleek | May 12, 2008 11:40 AM

As a supporter you should ask yourself why SHE couldn't seal the deal?

Indeed, that is the right question. Hillary was far ahead in name recognition, institutional support and superdelegates - but no more. It looks like all this talk about "seal the deal" is cover for the fact that Hillary failed to do so.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 12, 2008 11:41 AM

Nathan: He can't seal the deal and win it, because the only way to avoid hypothetical coup by superdelegate is to win approximately 63% of the pledged delegates. That is out of reach.

But even that wouldn't matter by Hillary rules, because the pledged delegates are not pledged. So suppose Obama had 66% of the pledged delegates and a majority of the supers: wouldn't matter. If all the supers went for her and then just 10% of his pledged delegates went for her, she'd be in! Why drop out when you're that close?

The specific modalities aren't very important, it's about shifting the national discussion to the problems with McCain.
True. Please list the instances of the Clintons going down graciously in defeat........
Okay, that out of the way, the party needs to do that without waiting on her and Bill, because they'll still be waiting next February.

Posted by Deborah | May 12, 2008 12:32 PM

JTHB

Kudos to all your posts!

Here is the link to support your claims:
http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clinton_must_be_the_democratic_nominee_do_the_math

Posted by EWard | May 12, 2008 1:45 PM

Hillary in the Fuerher Bunker.

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/possibly-funniest-youtube-ever.html

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 12, 2008 2:33 PM

morzer:

Every time Petey posts, I am reminded of the tedious child who came up to me at a birthday party, fixed me with two big blue eyes and murmured, sotto voce: "I went pee-pee".

Every time Petey posts, an angel loses its wings and dies.

Hillary is working towards Obama's disadvantage but I don't think it will matter that much. I don't think it will hurt him enough to stop him from winning. She'll drop out after the last primary and that will be that.

Posted by Peter K. | May 12, 2008 2:48 PM

JTHB

Here is another link to support your claims:
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Posted by EWard | May 12, 2008 4:41 PM

"If HRC becomes VP there's no precedent for expanding the power of the VP and she can go hibernate if she wants. She'd have more power as a Senator."

Wrong. Hillary could do serious damage to Obama as VP.

You're over-stating things. As VP she breaks ties in the Senate. Where she currently has a vote anyway. Her role as President of the Senate as VP would be a step down since she'd only have a vote in the case of a tie.

Anything pernicious that she'd want to do to Obama would be also open to her as a Senator. Or as a private citizen. Being VP wouldn't add anything to her power. And, as I pointed out, would actually diminish her substantive capacity.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 12, 2008 8:29 PM

I think we need to realize that Obama is a pawn for the Israeli lobby. Lookat his first name, it's almost the same as the name of the prime minister of Israel before Sharon!

BARA(C)K Hussein Obama is obviously a tool of Israel and we need to emphasize his first name as much as possible every time we refer to BARA(C)K Hussein Obama.

[Note: please no angry emails calling me an antisemite because you don't undestand what I am making fun of here].

Posted by Glaivester | May 12, 2008 10:30 PM

"As VP she breaks ties in the Senate. Where she currently has a vote anyway. Her role as President of the Senate as VP would be a step down since she'd only have a vote in the case of a tie."

I'm not talking about some lame votes in the Senate. I'm talking about seriously underhanded crap in the back halls of Washington - just like Cheney.

"Anything pernicious that she'd want to do to Obama would be also open to her as a Senator. Or as a private citizen."

Oh, please. Are you seriously stating that Dick Cheney would be in the bunker on 9/11 as a private citizen or a Senator?

Get a clue. The VP is in the line of succession. The VP has powers that can be used in conjunction with whatever other contacts he or she has in the Administration and/or the Congress. And Clinton has plenty of both.

Obama allowing Clinton to be the VP would be akin to allowing a Borgia to make your dinner.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 13, 2008 5:28 AM