Hurdles

Ambinder reports: "Clinton advisors think their candidate is being held to an unreasonable standard. Why should she have to consistently demonstrate her capacity to win in major states? Why does the press persist in setting up new hurdles for her overcome every time she jumps over her old hurdle?"

That's even crazier than their new gas kick. Hillary Clinton has been subjected to a lot of unfair press coverage in her life. But I've never before in my life seen the press as willing to go easy on a candidate's claims to still be a viable contender. If anyone else had found herself in the situation Clinton found herself in in February -- losing a dozen primaries in a row! -- they'd have been proclaimed dead. And then on March 4, her one big chance to close the delegate gap with Obama, she didn't close the gap. The reason the press keeps setting up "new hurdles" is that she's already failed the hurdle of winning enough delegates to beat Barack Obama.

She's lucky these new hurdles keep popping up, because it's propping her candidacy up and, not coincidentally, probably good business for campaign reporters. But normally when your opponent racks up an insurmountable lead, you've lost the campaign. And that's the situation she's been in for months at this point.

Comments

Yes, but you're a quote-unquote expert, so the Clinton campaign has decided to take a position that disagrees with yours.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 2, 2008 1:58 PM

I am relatively new to the world of political blogs. I found Andrew Sullivan through a co-worker a couple of years back, and though I disagree with him often, I find his writing to be (mostly) provocative (when he's not being hysterical).

I found your blog through Sullivan's, and have enjoyed it very much. I find I agree with you more, and you've got an equally engaging style.

I found Ambinder through both of you, and at first through he had some well-reasoned points, but lately, he's looking more and more like a hack. Just a hack. Sad, really.

Posted by Trigger | May 2, 2008 2:02 PM

And Ambinder wonders why so many of his commenters have concluded he is purely a Clinton shill. I don't think he's in the tank for her so much as he is in the tank for a style of political reporting that holds the front-runner to a much higher standard than the challenger(s). But it's sad to see this repeated willingness to swallow Hillary's assertions and worldview without serious question.

Posted by Grunthos | May 2, 2008 2:04 PM

I think we've seen at least eight different incarnations of HRC the candidate now. I have to be honest, about the only one I liked was "Hillary the inevitable" back before Iowa. At least that one seemed respectable, even presidential.

The latest is just plain ugly.

Posted by Jake | May 2, 2008 2:04 PM

This is definitely true. After Texas/Ohio, it was clear that this contest was over. Yet Hillary persisted in running an aggressive and largely negative campaign.

I don't care so much for the Haim Sabans of the world. They are fine being parted with $2,300 for their max. contribution, but I find it deeply tragic for the majority of the rest of the Democrats, both Obama and Clinton supporters who are now throwing money into the trench warfare for an outcome that is largely decided. That is money and energy better spent on McCain.

Posted by z_adura | May 2, 2008 2:05 PM

Scuttlebut is that Obama is going to lose both NC and Indiana. Which is why all of todays efforts have been focused on laundering the fraudulent Kantor video in hopes of changing the dynamics.

It's over. PA and his throwing Wright under the bus sealed his fate. Team Obama is now reduced to trying desperately to get some lie, any lie to stick into the collective consciousness before Tuesday.

But like Edwards famous deer in the headlights to Cheney's "I don't know you." in the 2004 VP debates, a single day of coordinated pressure crumbled Obama. And the world took notice.

I told you guys you shouldn't have been shielding and fluffing for him all these months. He's the weaker candidate. He's like Bush he can't be off script or he's just road kill.

Posted by patience | May 2, 2008 2:06 PM

"But normally when your opponent racks up an insurmountable lead, you've lost the campaign. And that's the situation she's been in for months at this point."

You're assuming that the delegates from Florida, Michigan, Mexico and Canada will not be seated.

Posted by Njorl | May 2, 2008 2:07 PM

Ambinder is very useful for getting the views of party insiders and the higher-ups of the MSM. If you just view his blog through that lens, you'll probably like it.

Posted by Chris O. | May 2, 2008 2:07 PM

I don't think he's in the tank for her so much as he is in the tank for a style of political reporting that holds the front-runner to a much higher standard than the challenger(s). But it's sad to see this repeated willingness to swallow Hillary's assertions and worldview without serious question.

I don't think he's *in* the tank so much as he ate the tank. You're right about his willingness to swallow Clinton's campaign material, tho'. To swallow their assertions, their worldview, and their delicious, delicious chicken wings.

Posted by Curly | May 2, 2008 2:09 PM

"Clinton advisors think their candidate is being held to an unreasonable standard. Why should she have to consistently demonstrate her capacity to win in major states?"

Because, despite having greater initial advantages than any other non-incumbent presidential candidate in modern history, SHE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO WIN THE NOMINATION! She lost Washington. She lost Texas. She lost Virginia. And to get close to Obama's lead in pledged delegates, she needs to win all of the remaining contests 60/40.

The wonder is why she's still even in the race.

Posted by LFC | May 2, 2008 2:11 PM

To work the track & field analogy a bit, it's funny that the Clinton campaign complains that the media keep putting up more hurdles for them, considering that the campaign keeps moving the finish line. Sayin' is all.

Posted by sweet johnny | May 2, 2008 2:13 PM

Oh, yeah. It doesn't help that Hillary's campaign has been caught in yet another lie. When it comes to Hillary and her staff, lying seems to be in their DNA.

Posted by LFC | May 2, 2008 2:14 PM

patience, you really shouldn't show such disrespect to our party's nominee. Run along now.

Posted by SDinIA | May 2, 2008 2:19 PM

Can't wait to see who was behind the fraudulent Kantor clip...

Posted by Andruw | May 2, 2008 2:21 PM

Can't wait to see who was behind the fraudulent Kantor clip...

Interesting how Obama said nothing about it, but Hillary repeated the Canada/NAFTA rumor about Obama even after it was shown to be a lie by the Canadian government. Yes, very telling.

Posted by LFC | May 2, 2008 2:24 PM

There you go again using logic and evidence--how absurd.

I don't think Marc gets it. Because he has tried to remain neutral he has received a lot of flak, especially from Obama supporters--so it is understandable that he has become a little cheesed off, and I think this is effecting his judgement. But Marc still wants to maintain an objective position, but these claims of objectivity combined with (what I think is) an anti-Obama bias makes the Obama supporters even more irritated and on it goes.

This polarising campaign is tough as Megan was saying recently on Bloggingheads, and especially tough for those trying to stay neutral. Like Matt, I think the superdelegates should have done their job weeks ago.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 2, 2008 2:29 PM

Edwards famous deer in the headlights to Cheney's "I don't know you."

Now I am not a professional politics follower, but what is the famous "I don't know you"? I googled it, but could not find anything. Anyone?

Posted by ropty | May 2, 2008 2:29 PM

To be fair, it is darn hard sounding logical when your campaign strategy involves running against the media, and meanwhile the media is doing everything it can to keep your campaign alive.

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 2:33 PM

what is the famous "I don't know you"?

In the VP debate in 2004, Cheney said that part of his duties as VP is to be president of the senate (true, although most VPs never show up except if a vote needs a tiebreaker) and as such he goes there one day every week (untrue; he'd been there, like, twice) and yet this was the first time he's ever met Edwards (also untrue; he actually swore Edwards in, iirc).

The implication being that Edwards never showed up to work.

Posted by mark f | May 2, 2008 2:36 PM

What Ambinder buys into is the wisdom of inside the beltway journalism, the Jack Trapper politics of freak show crap that rules the world of politico.

From Ambinder "THE ONLY WAY that Clinton beats Obama in North Carolina is if Obama supporters become skittish and stay home"

Cool, a democratic candidate wanting to hold down voter turnout. We all know the unspoken subtext of that sentence - they hope black people don't bother to vote.

Posted by bjd | May 2, 2008 2:36 PM

Thank you, Matt Yglesias, for posting this. Because I had the strangest experience while reading Ambinder's post on this. Given that it's Ambinder's blog, I began reading the post with the assumption it was Ambinder blogging about the Clinton campaign's take on her current position in the race. But, as I continued to read, I became confused about who was actually blogging. It read entirely like a blog post by the Clinton campaign frustrated by the public's failure to see that she is actually winning the race. Weird.

The very question "Does Clinton have to win North Carolina, too" assumes that winning North Carolina would further prove she should be the nominee. But her winning North Carolina is only relevant if it puts her closer to over-taking Obama in pledged delegates. Which she can never do.

And what does this mean: Further, based on a year's worth of conversations with uncommitted superdelegates, I've found that a good number of them just do not want another Clinton administration .... They are already predisposed to favor Obama. And they like him. And they have doubts about his general election viability. In their thinking, if he's going to be the nominee, he's going to need their support regardless of whether he earned their support when put next to this: As in previous cycles, the superdels are mostly followers; they're mostly following, again, expectations, rather than expressed preferences.

How has he not earned their support? He's made them like him, and he's winning. How, then, are they merely followers? What expectations are they merely following? That he will win? Because, you know, he is winning. What expressed preferences are they going against? They like/prefer Obama and, again, he's winning.

Color me confused. The whole post reads like a Clinton campaign post. I'm sure it's just some Jedi mind-trick that went right over my head. But, still, weird post by Ambinder there. Just weird.

Posted by REgnartel | May 2, 2008 2:37 PM

CLINTON APPROACHES North Carolina as an unquestionable underdog. The demographics are so daunting that her campaign reproaches any reporter who poses the must-win question. It is absurd, aides say, to think that Clinton can overcome Obama's built-in advantages there, and it sets unfair expectations on her when the possibility of a Clinton victory is broached.

This coming from the Clinton campaign (or at least Marc's interpretation of their message) is so profoundly hypocritical my jaw hit the floor when I read it. How are they allowed to get away with this spin mere weeks after her "built-in advantages" carried the vote in PA?

It's a fair point, but possibly irrelevant.

Here is where Ambinder goes shamelessly in the tank for Clinton. In what way is the above hypocrisy a "fair point?"

I don't think he's *in* the tank so much as he ate the tank. You're right about his willingness to swallow Clinton's campaign material, tho'. To swallow their assertions, their worldview, and their delicious, delicious chicken wings.

Too funny, Curly.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 2, 2008 2:38 PM

There's been a surprising number of anonymous bitter trolls like "patience."

I used to laugh at Matt's frustration at the beginning of the Democratic primary. Now, watching Hillary's campaign and the press's reaction, I feel like the exasperated Mugatu in the movie Zoolander.

Mugatu: "The man has only one look, for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

On the other hand, it is pretty crazy that Obama will be the nominee. He was such an underdog, but he really is a talented politican and a critical mass of Democrats decided to roll the dice.

Posted by Peter K. | May 2, 2008 2:38 PM

"The reason the press keeps setting up 'new hurdles' is that she's already failed the hurdle of winning enough delegates to beat Barack Obama."

Like the same isn't true for Obama? I want to see delegates vote against the winner of the popular vote.

Has anyone ever called you an over-educated idiot? Ha!

Posted by Israel | May 2, 2008 2:43 PM

ambers left his credibility in his other pants suit.

Posted by georgie | May 2, 2008 2:43 PM

There's a certain value to reading a writer or a news source who can give you an inside track on "what that side is thinking." Unfortunately, the people on the inside track willing to provide info are only willing to give it to true-believers. Thus, reading Ambinder can clue you in on how the Clinton faction is thinking, but the flipside is you have to read it from someone who's completely drunk the kool-aid. A similar dynamic is at work at the Washington Times: it's a great source for finding out what Republican insiders want to leak or what they're saying, but you have to put up with reading it in a newspaper that's considered "part of the team" by those sources.

Posted by Tyro | May 2, 2008 2:45 PM

Like the same isn't true for Obama? I want to see delegates vote against the winner of the popular vote.

1. The race is scored by delegates.
2. Obama leads the popular vote.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 2, 2008 2:45 PM

But Tim, remember Njorl's comment @ 2:07:

"You're assuming that the delegates from Florida, Michigan, Mexico and Canada will not be seated."

Ditto for their popular vote, eh?

Posted by klr | May 2, 2008 2:52 PM

Thank you, Matt, for consistently being a voice of reason.

Posted by Ruth | May 2, 2008 2:52 PM

Does Hillary think she's going to win NC?
TPM quotes Hillary:
"This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country -- probably even a lot of the world -- is looking to see what North Carolina decides."
Strange. Especially odd if they think they need to suppress votes to make this happen.

Posted by bjd | May 2, 2008 2:58 PM

I am absolutely amazed at Ambinder's post. I've never before suggested, as others have, that he's in it for Clinton, but good grief.

Since Pennsylvania, Obama has won the support of twice as many superdelegates...

Why might that be? Because Pennsylvania was the largest state left to vote and the last chance for the Clinton campaign to seriously dent his lead, and that didn't happen? Maybe so. Maybe because after PA, the superdelegates see that there's just no way for her to turn this around. Or they see, like Joe Andrew, that this is NOT a helpful process and it's doing nothing but damaging the party's prospects in the fall and they want it over with. None of these points seem to enter Marc's orbit, though.

...even as Clinton has been able to marshal data point after data point showing herself to be more electable than he.

Yes, she has put together some data points in favor of her electability. But Marc, didn't Obama's campaign put together a memo regarding his own argument for superior electability after PA? Marc asserts that Clinton is more electable than Obama as if this is an out-and-out fact; it is not. It is just this: an argument. And Clinton can put together an argument, but after many of the tenuous arguments her campaign has made, that doesn't mean people are going to buy it.

It's true that right now Clinton leads Obama versus McCain in national polling. It's also been true that at many points in the past, Obama has lead Clinton versus McCain in national polling. Maybe supers see this as the worst point in Obama's campaign but one he can still rebound from? Maybe they see that numbers have been in flux throughout the campaign and one momentary snapshot isn't the ultimate arbiter of factual electability? It's like these aren't even valid considerations. And Marc doesn't acknowledge that while Clinton is clearly much stronger than Obama in some states, there are others where he has a decisive advantage.

In the kaleidoscopic psychologies of uncommitted superdelegates, a skepticism about Hillary Clinton seems to weigh more heavily than her data-driven arguments.

I love that Marc's stance seems to be that superdelegate uncertainties about Obama are legitimate and mandatory, but those uncertainties about Clinton are spurious and emotional.

CLINTON APPROACHES North Carolina as an unquestionable underdog. The demographics are so daunting that her campaign reproaches any reporter who poses the must-win question. It is absurd, aides say, to think that Clinton can overcome Obama's built-in advantages there, and it sets unfair expectations on her when the possibility of a Clinton victory is broached.

Isn't this what Obama aides said about Pennsylvania?

CLINTON ADVISERS think their candidate is being held to an unreasonable standard. Why should she have to consistently demonstrate her capacity to win in major states?

This is hogwash. Why should Obama have to consistently demonstrate either? The only capacity the candidate needs to show is: get enough votes, get enough delegates. Marc completely buys into the Clinton campaign's view here that the only necessary wins are the Clinton's concept of "major states." She doesn't need to prove she can win the states she determines she needs to win; she needs to prove that she can win more delegates and votes than her opponent. That is the standard here. For all of the significance of her "major states," she trails in delegates and votes.

Why does the press persist in setting up new hurdles for her overcome every time she jumps over her old hurdle?

Because the old hurdle is the one she still hasn't successfully leapt: WIN MORE THAN YOUR OPPONENT.

The answer is may be that the Democratic nominating process is not democratic and the standards by which one measures it are not the product of some unbiased judge sitting behind a veil of ignorance.

Wow. So the nominating process isn't democratic because it's failed to give Sen. Clinton the nomination she and her select group of "major states" believes she deserves? This is amazing stuff.

The process is the process. It consists of numerous democratic straight elections and activist-favored caucuses mixed with the votes of elected officials and party insiders. And all the votes are talied proportionally, which is far more democratic than the winner-take-all method where half the votes in a state are disregarded if you lose it by one vote. This is the process both candidates agreed to. And I don't even know what to make of the second part, that the standards one measures the contest by aren't neutral -- the only standard is the delegates.

The route to the nomination for Obama is fairly straight. He'll end the primary season just about 80 votes short of securing the nomination. It is much easier to get a third of the remaining superdelegates than it is to get two thirds of them.

Correct. So why should the superdelegates go with the loser?

CLINTON TOUGHEST task is to find a way to change the uncommitted superdelegate's expectation of who will win.

If that's the case, then Clinton's toughest task is to change the very rules of mathematics. The superdelegates aren't stupid. They can go to Slate's delegate calculator as easily as you or I and see what it would take for her to win. And they know it isn't possible; they know this with greater clarity since Pennsylvania.

That's because these superdelegates are clearly worried about the damage the process is causing to Obama's general election prospects -- not so much the prospects themselves, but the effect of the process on the prospects.

What this means is that when Marc talks about Obama's electability, what the supers see is that "Hey, this guy is going to win no matter what, and getting hit from inside his party (Clinton) and outside (McCain) at the same time is taking a serious toll on him; the primary, Clinton, is what is what's hurting the electability of the guy who's going to win anyway, so it's time to get this over with."

As in previous cycles, the superdels are mostly followers; they're mostly following, again, expectations, rather than expressed preferences.

They're not following the expressed preferences of the voters? They're only following expectations that Obama will win? But Marc, superdelegates expect that Obama will win because of the expressed preferences so far, which has left us with only 9 contests remaining.

Posted by jbryan | May 2, 2008 3:06 PM

Ambinder is guilty of propping Clinton up. Unfortunately, I can't say that in his comments since he suspended them.
However, he is no more guilty than Matthews, Olberman, Tapper, the entire political staff of the NYTimes, etc.

The reality is even if Obama lost every remaining state by a 55-45 margin, he would still finish with the most delegates. Fortunately for Clinton, the calendar of the race favored her demographic base slightly towards the end which allows her to make ridiculous momentum arguments.

For Obama to come into the convention with the most delegates and be denied the nomination would have many groups (including but not exclusively African Americans) staying home in November or voting for a 3rd party candidate.

Kerry had 91% of the African American vote in '04. Based on recent polling Clinton would have 59%. Even if she increases this support to 70-80% by November, she would still lose the general.

African Americans are the backbone of the Democratic party and she has royally p*ssed them off.

I believe the reasons the supers have not ended this are for 2 reasons
1) Huge Clinton egos & not wanting to damage Bill's legacy
2) Not wanting to p*ss of Clinton's voter base of old white women which Democrats also need.

The only suspense that is being generated right now is by the media which is self-servingly aligned itself with the Clinton camp.

Posted by John B | May 2, 2008 3:12 PM

For all you people going on about the precious popular vote, can you explain to me how caucus results will be counted? Because it seems to me that the very nature of the caucus introduces difficulties in generating an accurate "popular vote" count.

Or should caucus states just be thrown out?

Posted by spencer | May 2, 2008 3:15 PM

jbryan's point by point evisceration is why Ambinder does not allow comments - he's tired of people drinking his milkshake.
Excellent work jbryan!

Posted by bjd | May 2, 2008 3:18 PM

Or should caucus states just be thrown out?

Yes. We should also include in the popular vote states in which Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot, or in which he didn't not actively campaign (consistent with agreed upon rules). It's hard out there for a pimp, unless of course you're a pimp for Hillary a la Ambinder.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 2, 2008 3:19 PM

"Israel:"
Like the same isn't true for Obama? I want to see delegates vote against the winner of the popular vote.

Has anyone ever called you an over-educated idiot?

Anonymous cowardly Troll... Obama is winning the popular vote. Clinton is saying NC is a game changer, but when she loses it, it will go down the memory hole as a another state that doesn't matter (b/c it went to Obama).

Obama won Texas (more delegates) but Clinton and her supporters conveniently act as if that didn't happen.

Posted by Peter K. | May 2, 2008 3:21 PM

of course, I meant "in which he did not actively campaign." Sorry for the double negative.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 2, 2008 3:22 PM

I can't argue with some proto-fascist moron who comfortably says, without batting an eye, that "Obama won Texas (more delegates)" when it's clear that MORE people voted for the other candidate.

The idiocy is astounding.

Posted by Israel | May 2, 2008 3:43 PM

"I can't argue with some proto-fascist moron who comfortably says, without batting an eye, that "Obama won Texas (more delegates)" when it's clear that MORE people voted for the other candidate." -Says the clown claiming Clinton has the popular vote lead. It is amazing to me how Clinton supporters are able to lie to themselves. Disgusting, really.

Posted by Todd Doug | May 2, 2008 3:57 PM

I can't argue with some proto-fascist moron who comfortably says, without batting an eye, that "Obama won Texas (more delegates)" when it's clear that MORE people voted for the other candidate.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html

Obama got 99 delegates to Clinton's 94 delegates. What's there to argue about? Troll on, brother, troll on. It's won't last much longer.

Posted by Peter K. | May 2, 2008 4:01 PM

As much as I hate to say it, I could see a chance where Hillary wins a bunch of states and gets the supers to commit to her. The old school civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson were seen as interest-group politicians ("the black candidate") which allowed white candidates to pigeonhole them and win because there are more white voters than black voters. Barack Obama took off like a rocket and racked up this huge lead because he wasn't just after the black vote--he was winning places like North Dakota and Wyoming fer gawds sake. But Hillary kept waiting around for a disaster to happen and here it is. Reverend Wright sounds like every white man's caricature of a black civil rights leader--angry, paranoid, kinda outlandish, and above all interested in advancing the cause of blacks rather than making a pitch to all Americans. Try not to notice the crickets chirping as McCain embraces pastors who insinuate that the Holocaust was God's just revenge on the Jews for killing Christ, and focus on the fact that, because every black person has to answer for every other black person, Obama is being successfully painted as the black candidate because somebody else thinks the government invented HIV. This hasn't impacted the polls in a massive way so far, but it's like acid and will slowly eat away at middle of the road white support for Obama if he doesn't change the narrative and win back the post-racial appeal he had.

Obama's slide (small so far) hasn't been based on his Iraq policy, or his economic policy, or his health care policy, or any other policy. I can't remember the last time anyone other than Krugman had a substantive critique of his policies. It's all--entirely--bowling and flag pins and arugula and, above all, angry black preachers. Put next to each other, the criticisms show up as the nonsense they are; he's a martini-sipping country club elitist but also an angry closet Black Panther who wants to burn the country club down, he's a secret Muslim fanatic who agrees with everything his Christian pastor says and also looks down on religious people in general, etc. etc. But the elitist black candidate "not one of us" label is starting to stick.

Obama is a once in a generation politician who can also get a heck of a lot more done than Hillary because he won't be primarily interested in a 4 year or 8 year fistfight. if he loses it'll be because people, against all available evidence, got him mixed up with a different, angry black man who kept showing up on their TV screens. If Hillary Clinton or John McCain beat him they will have racism to thank and nothing else. And the criticisms coming from McCain wouldn't have the same impact as when coming from Hillary, because people are so pissed at the GOP they're willing to go with a Democrat even if it's a black guy. It's way too early to cry that all is lost, but this has the potential to be the most sickening thing we have ever seen.

BTW, here's where Al Gore's endorsment, along with a reminder to everyone that Obama is so much more than a special interest demographic candidate, would really come in handy.

Posted by spokeytown | May 2, 2008 4:13 PM

I'm trying not to visit Ambinder's blog in order to signal my dissatisfaction with his cutting off comments.

But I agree the primary utility of Ambinder's blog is that since the Clinton Campaign basically ghost writes his blog, it is an efficient way to find out what spin the Clinton Campaigan is putting out at any given moment. And I find it encouraging that apparently they are starting to put out excuses for why the remaining superdelegates won't vote for Clinton. So, it sounds like they are preparing to give up the spin that somehow the superdelegates are going to save her from losing the pledged delegate contest.

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 4:14 PM

Ambinder is nom de plume for Maggie Williams, Mark Penn and Wolfson.

Posted by JayDawg | May 2, 2008 4:15 PM

Great comment, jbryan. Thanks for that.

Posted by Trevor J | May 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Ambinder is a Clinton shill.

Posted by Korha | May 2, 2008 4:21 PM

I never claimed HRC is ahead on the popular vote, but if we let people have a choice, the way it's supposed to be (you know, democracy and all), she may very well end up ahead. And then, I'd like to see super delegates vote against her.

As for caucuses, we can approximate those votes with ease (and btw, of the four caucuses not reporting yet, remember that HRC won NV, so it's not a win-win for you creative class kool kids).

But go on, build straw men and knock em' down so you could feel good about yourselves. I know now why so many non-affiliated types get turned off by us in the Democratic base: it's populated by a bunch of dumb, self-righteous idiots who think they're "educated" cause they read blogs, watch Countdown, and read few newspaper articiles.

Posted by Israel | May 2, 2008 4:31 PM

Israel, "proto-fascist?" Hmm, no Jonah Goldberg mockery for a while. I missed "Obama the civil libertarian who promotes democratic participation is a fascist."

Also, the assumption that caucuses lack merit is absurd. Their goal is to build parties, by getting people out and involved. And if Obama's supporters are more hard-core, that should count for something. It means they're more likely to turn out. Part of John Kerry's problem was that he had wide support in the party but not terribly deep support. Hillary would have been another John Kerry. So, causes count, and Obama does very well in them. And as a result, he won more *delegates* in Texas than Clinton.

But the larger point -- rules is rules. And because each state has a lot of discretion in the nomination process, and the rules vary by state, it's important not to keep changing them or else it's total balls-on chaos!

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 4:35 PM

That really is the most bizarre comment. It was the Clinton campaign that made winning big states (e.g., Texas, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania) the test of whether a presidential candidate is electable. And now, having made that the test, to turn around and complain that they are being held to meeting the test that they created is just plain psychotic (as in, out of touch with reality).

It's just another indication of the Clinton campaign's strategy of manipulating the election and voters, which does not bode well for either the general election (if she's the nominee) or for governing (if she's elected).

Supporting a reduction in the gas tax, which is rejected as a bad idea by policy experts, after claiming to base her campaign on policy expertise is beyond pandering. It's losing the battle while claiming to do so in the service of winning the war, and probably losing that as well. Copy McCain's policy initiatives, and say he's the best to be commander in chief, and expect to win? Why wouldn't voters take the real thing?

Posted by john raymond | May 2, 2008 4:43 PM

One of the basic requirements for fair elections is that the rules of the election have to be made public in advance and then followed. Only then do you give all the relevant entities, most notably voters but also all the people involved in administering the election, fair notice of what they need to do.

So, changing the way in which the winner is chosen after the fact from a state-by-state delegate system, where state parties are given discretion to chose the method by which their delegates will be allocated, to a total vote system, which would necessarily harm the states' whose chosen methods for allocating delegates did not maximize their total vote count, would be fundamentally UNdemocratic. And that is because democracy requires fair elections, and changing the rules after the fact violates a basic principle of fair elections.

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 4:47 PM

I never claimed HRC is ahead on the popular vote, but if we let people have a choice, the way it's supposed to be (you know, democracy and all),

You are aware that there are rules? The rules are why George Bush won the 2000 election and Gore lost even though he won the popular vote. So get off your high horse and stuff insulting us with phrases like "creative class kool kids." Read any objective account and it will say Hillary has lost this race. McCain will lose too and I can't wait to see the look on Republicans' faces.

Hillary's supporters would say ad nauseum "politics ain't beanbag" and "the Republicans will be much worse in the fall." They were right, Clinton and her supporters were amateurs. Get that weak shit out of my face!

Posted by Peter K. | May 2, 2008 4:52 PM

Israel,

I never claimed HRC is ahead on the popular vote, but if we let people have a choice, the way it's supposed to be (you know, democracy and all), she may very well end up ahead.

Absolutely. She may well end up ahead. It'll be pretty difficult for that to happen, but it may. And people do have a choice (contrary to latent Clintonista belief, no one is trying to deny voters a choice by calling for an end to the primary process, any more than people were "denied" in prior elections when the game effectively ended after Iowa and New Hampshire).

Even if she does end up with a slight popular vote lead, however, Sen. Obama will still have the delegate lead, which is the measurement officially used to determine victory. If Sen. Obama wins on both counts, I expect the party to finally rally around him as its nominee (and I hope the self-inflicted damage isn't too severe by that point). If not -- if Sen. Clinton wins one measurement and Sen. Obama wins the other -- the best one could argue is that the counts are murky enough that the primary process didn't produce a clear victor and then it does fall to the supers to make their own personal choices.

As for caucuses, we can approximate those votes with ease (and btw, of the four caucuses not reporting yet, remember that HRC won NV, so it's not a win-win for you creative class kool kids).

I don't know how much of a creative class kool kid I am. I make under 50k, own my own home, and I'm white -- doesn't this make me "white working class?" Sorry to burst your assumptions.

And yes, we can approximate the votes of the caucuses. That has been done. And even with Sen. Clinton's Nevada victory, adding those four states (plus the other caucus states) adds significantly to Sen. Obama's tally.

But go on, build straw men and knock em' down so you could feel good about yourselves. I know now why so many non-affiliated types get turned off by us in the Democratic base: it's populated by a bunch of dumb, self-righteous idiots who think they're "educated" cause they read blogs, watch Countdown, and read few newspaper articiles.

Talking about building straw men, as if your opponents have some sort of monopoly on logically falacious arguments: in every single post you've made in this thread, you've made at least one, often more than one, vicious ad hominem. Whether deriding people as kool kids or calling people dumb idiots (redundant much?) or self righteous or even proto-Fascists. You're not in any position to theorize why others might get turned off by the base -- you're flat out offensive. And I like the jab about people who "think" they're educated based on fictional measurements when your first remark here was to claim that Matt himself is overeducated. I guess it is, as Sen. Clinton said, a Goldilocks scenario where you're doomed if you have too little or too much. Gosh, why don't you get back to us when Howard Wolfson lets you know exactly the right level of education to have in order to be considered a non-elitist individual capable of making a proper contribution to the Democratic Party.

Posted by jbryan | May 2, 2008 4:52 PM

Self-estimation of intelligence does not have anything to do with choice of candidates, except to the extent that a good 2/3ds of everything Clinton says is philosophically incoherent, factually wrong, or both. So, people who believe that shit, do tend towards the low side in my assessment of their intellects. (Unless there are other reasons for not rallying behind our nominee, more "emotional" ones, perhaps, such that the *actual* arguments of the Clinton campaign are really peripheral.)

Arguing that there's some uncrossable gulf between the working class on one hand and more wealthy democrats on the other is exactly what Republicans do over culture war wedge issues. The classic wedge issue being race (gay marriage being a poor substitute). The democratic party's been led by the likes of FDR and JFK on one hand and Truman, LBJ, and, yes, Clinton, on the other.

It's telling that Obama wants to move past these false antagonisms nationwide, while Clinton wants to introduce them in the party. (Well, she doesn't really; she just can't see past August!)

I do watch Countdown sometimes; but getting a good feeling from watching that is better than thinking you're "of the people" by sounding like he New York Post.

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 4:52 PM

"Talking about building straw men, as if your opponents have some sort of monopoly on logically falacious arguments: in every single post you've made in this thread, you've made at least one, often more than one, vicious ad hominem."

Somebody needs to look up what "straw men" means.

"Even if she does end up with a slight popular vote lead, however, Sen. Obama will still have the delegate lead, which is the measurement officially used to determine victory."

Right, and that metric is tightening, and if you guys stop yelling at her to get out of this race and let the primary schedule continue, that metric will continue to tighten. What's wrong with process?

"except to the extent that a good 2/3ds of everything Clinton says is philosophically incoherent, factually wrong, or both. So, people who believe that shit, do tend towards the low side in my assessment of their intellects."

Anyone who uses "philosophically" as restrictively as you have "tends towards the low side in my assessment of their intellects."

"So, changing the way in which the winner is chosen after the fact from a state-by-state delegate system, where state parties are given discretion to chose the method by which their delegates will be allocated, to a total vote system, which would necessarily harm the states' whose chosen methods for allocating delegates did not maximize their total vote count, would be fundamentally UNdemocratic."

No one is arguing for the rules to change. It's simple, some superdelegates are undecided, the HRC campaign is trying to persuade them by saying that although he's got more pledeged delegates, MORE people voted for her. That's it. Under "the rules," superdelegates are free to vote whichever way they want. And if HRC succeeds, then "the math" may end up favoring her.

"Get that weak shit out of my face!"

No comment.

Posted by Israel | May 2, 2008 5:16 PM

"Anyone who uses "philosophically" as restrictively as you have "tends towards the low side in my assessment of their intellects."

Yeah, sorry I missed that. I was too busy reading my B.A. in philosophy diploma. But you raise a good point: I should not have limited Hillary's incoherence to her lack of any reasoned worldview. She is also coherent with respect to economics, political science, sociology, psychology, history, religion, and English.

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 5:24 PM

"Anyone who uses "philosophically" as restrictively as you have "tends towards the low side in my assessment of their intellects."

Yeah, sorry I missed that. I was too busy reading my B.A. in philosophy diploma. But you raise a good point: I should not have limited Hillary's incoherence to her lack of any reasoned worldview. She is also incoherent with respect to economics, political science, sociology, psychology, history, religion, and English.

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 5:24 PM

Double-post to correct meaning-changing typo.

Also worth noting that she doesn't seem to understand law (at least of the Constitutional variety).

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 5:27 PM

No one is arguing for the rules to change. It's simple, some superdelegates are undecided, the HRC campaign is trying to persuade them by saying that although he's got more pledeged delegates, MORE people voted for her. That's it. Under "the rules," superdelegates are free to vote whichever way they want. And if HRC succeeds, then "the math" may end up favoring her.

It's unlikely MORE people will vote for her. If she wasn't leading in the popular vote by now, she would be at the end of the month.

Many of us "kool kids" are resigned to the fact that she's not getting out of the race. In my mind you're just a troll, raising unlikely scenerios and insulting people for whatever reason.

Posted by Peter K. | May 2, 2008 5:41 PM

"She is also coherent with respect to economics, political science, sociology, psychology, history, religion, and English."

okay mr. philos, how is HRC "philosophically incoherent" w.r.t. political science, religion, English?

Oh yea, and "Law (of the constitutional type)."

(I have to say, I finally started laughing since posting in this thread)

Posted by Israel | May 2, 2008 5:42 PM

I used to cringe when old people started using the word "blogosphere" to signal that they're cool, that they're with it.

I'm starting to feel the same about "troll"

Posted by Israel | May 2, 2008 5:47 PM

Somebody needs to look up what "straw men" means.

I'm aware of what a strawman is. Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more closely. I think it's absurd for you to deploy complaints of one type of logical fallacy when you lean on a different kind of fallacy like a crutch.

Of course, you can craft your faux-logic however you wish, but the "boo hoo" charade you're playing out would likely garner more sympathy if you weren't apparently so committed to being viewed as a vicious individual tossing off hyperbolic insults.

Right, and that metric is tightening, and if you guys stop yelling at her to get out of this race and let the primary schedule continue, that metric will continue to tighten. What's wrong with process?

What's wrong with the process is that it is hurting the party and hurting our ability to win the election in November. No one can force her out, but I certainly do wish she'd get out at this point (actually, I said prior to March 4th that I was fine with the contest continuing as long as it wasn't turned into an all-out intraparty civil war, and as long as the fire remained focused on the Republicans; this clearly has not happened) and I'm fine with superdelegates getting off the fence and bringing this to a close.

...the HRC campaign is trying to persuade them by saying that although he's got more pledeged delegates, MORE people voted for her.

More people have not voted for her. More people may end up voting for her by the end of this process, though that is a very unlikely turn of events.

Posted by jbryan | May 2, 2008 5:54 PM

Well, Hillary's a Sophist. Will say anything, regardless of its constitency or lack thereof with anything else she's ever said.

And of the remaining disciplines, everything she's said on the campaign reveals studied and intentional ignorance about them. Political Science -- ever shifting ways she floats to determine the nominee. For economics, her comments on the gas tax For English, her constant use of "you know." For religion, her comments about Rev. Wright. For law, she's indicated a belief in Bushian levels of executive power viz. the other branches. For history, selective amnesia that her husband's administration and her role in it was pro-corporate.

All of which indicates that, I'm sorry, she's just not a lover of the Good, as philosophers must be. But rather, like any possessor of the tyrant soul, is captive to her appetites.

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 6:27 PM

Actually, the Hillary/McCain murder suicide is probably unrealistic, sadly. Much more likely: Hillary catches Bill in bed with an intern, blows his brains out, turns the gun on herself.

We can only hope and pray.

Posted by billisalsoadevil | May 2, 2008 6:44 PM

Regarding that "fraudulent tape" -- the Wapo agreed with today's interpretation back when the documentary came out.

Posted by bemused | May 2, 2008 7:46 PM

There's also the superdelegate issue. If the dems hadn't given themselves a powerful check--20% of the votes--on the risks of unchecked democracy among the party regulars, the math would have one less level and the breathless "can she catch up" would be answered by "no." While she can't get 70% of the remaining pledged delegates--her most fervent supporters don't claim that--the idea that she might get all the superdelegates remaining somehow seems more reasonable to people. (She needs about 70% of them too--including people like Clyburn or the guy who took up her challenge today to take a firm stand on the gas tax. They haven't declared, but you can tell where their sympathies lie.)

Give this to the Republicans, they're much less afraid of their own voters, and if they did have a destructive campaign going on that supers could help close down, does anyone think dithering and saying you wouldn't decide until July, maybe August would be tolerated?

Hurdles. Routinely Obama racked up 30 point margins, and it was shrugged off. But Clinton gets a 10-point win and she's a force to be reckoned with, don't count her out, etc.

Posted by Deborah | May 2, 2008 8:05 PM

Obama is slowly losing. you folks don't see it. You will abandon him the same way you abandoned dean.
The folks who vote here with thier big opinions are not representative of what a cross section of our democratic party is feeling now. The third party crazies who fluff up obama and sling shit at hillary refuse to recognise thier own bias.

He is john kerry and mondale and dean wrapped up into one losing bundle. The polls tell the story you refuse to comprehend. Don't you third party crazies ever get tired of losing? The folks who post here and bully any open dialogue about the campaign with high school-like name calling. when that doesn't work it denigrates into slurs or violent idiocy. And when that doesn't work you try to shut anybody who doesn't agree with you by saying they are secretly petey or that they are republican trolls.
could you possibly be more out of touch?

you are the same idiot posters who last month couldn't stop saying how much you agreed with wright, and that america just didn't understand the black church. Oops, you were wrong.

Last week just before pennsylvania all the obama freaks said hillary had to more than win penn by a few points because obama had cut into a huge lead in months old polls. Now in a state obama had a couple weeks ago by 15 and a few weeks ago by 2o or more you clowns say its hillary's camp that is changing the goal posts in saying that getting close to a win is a win in NC. do you folks have mirrors to see the shit in your eyes?

Obama is losing this thing by not winning. The goal line is 2024 or 2025. he's closer but close is only for horse shoes. he has to cross the line. And why would anyone with 1600+ delegates not go all the way to the convention? your thinking is so incredibly self serving.

even if the super delegates declare for obama and put him unofficially at 2025 or more she should and will stay in because Joe Andrews shows that they can switch anytime up until the convention.
Teddy stayed in for the good of the party and we'd have been better off to have gone with him, drink and all. A convention fight isn't a vain exercise here because until the convention ratifies the delegate count your guy is not a nominee. Its essential to go to the convention and resolve the fight between two versions of the same party.

Posted by Michael C. | May 2, 2008 8:24 PM

Clinton is indeed free to make whatever arguments she wishes to the superdelegates, and they are free to vote for whomever they choose. I'm just pointing out that an argument to the effect that the superdelegates should overrule the results of the pledged delegate contest on the basis of Clinton's estimation of who got more votes (here's guess: she will estimate she got more votes) is an argument for an undemocratic result.

But again, Clinton is free to make as many arguments for such an undemocratic result as she sees fit, and any given superdelegate is entitled to vote for an undemocratic result as he or she sees fit. But it is clear already that not enough superdelegates will be willing to vote for that undemocratic result to overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead. So, Clinton is not going to get her undemocratic result, meaning she will lose--and in a quite democratic fashion.

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 8:24 PM

"He is john kerry and mondale and dean wrapped up into one losing bundle."

I can't tell if you are a troll or not, but, for the sake of my comment, I'll assume you are not.

As for the above quote, this seems to part of the CW among the Clinton supporters, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama isn't John Kerry. I'd argue that Kerry is more like Clinton than Obama. If you remember, Kerry was nominated in large part as a reaction to Republican fears. The Democrats needed someone who could stand up to the Republican hit machine, and who better than a decorated war veteran. Clinton, in many ways, is making a similar argument, that she's the better choice in the face of the Republican hit machine because she's not black.

Dean? Stirred up the netroots and no one else. If Obama only stirred up the netroots, then he wouldn't have gotten past Super Tuesday.

Mondale? That was 24 years ago. Huge demographic changes in that time, among other things. It is like comparing Hillary to Hubert Humphrey -- you can make a glib comparison, but not a serious one.

Posted by Shine | May 2, 2008 8:54 PM

"Don't you third party crazies ever get tired of losing? The folks who post here and bully any open dialogue about the campaign with high school-like name calling. when that doesn't work it denigrates into slurs or violent idiocy."

Pot, kettle, black...

Posted by Rihilism | May 2, 2008 8:56 PM

God, you Hillary bots don't get it. If the Monster wins, the party will be utterly destroyed (and good riddance). Even if you are right about Obama - and you're not - for those of you who care about the party (I no longer do), losing oen presidential election isn't anywhere near as nbad as having the party go the way of the whigs. Especially since that evil piece of shit Hillary would (thankk God) lose all 50 states to McCain.

You fucking people make me sick. But in one sense I'll get the last laugh. When McCain totally wrecks the country, invades Iran, torches the budget and the economy, appoints the justices that overturn Roe, and you don't have a party left to pick up the pieces, I will laugh in your stupid, evil fucking faces.

Bottom line to any Hillary supporters - I hope you burn in the fires of hell for all eternity. I hate you evil scum far worse than even the Bush dead enders.

And you know what, I don't even like Obama that much. But hell, at this point even four more years of Bush, the worst president in United States history, would be better than The Monster or the Madman. And Obama, for all his faults, easily flies over that low bar.

Posted by LarryM | May 2, 2008 9:13 PM

Let me tell you another thing - I was one of the most vociferous critics of the Naderites. But ironically, the last eight years, far from being an embarrassment for the Naderites, is a vindication of them. Because your fucking Democratic party has joined in lockstep with every war crime of the Bush administration. And now you have a presidential race where 2 of the 3 candidates are bigger warmongers than Bush, and the third, Obama, is more hawkish than any Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy.

Posted by LarryM | May 2, 2008 9:19 PM

I wonder if there is any relationship between Armbinder closing his comments and increased links from MY and AS?

The only reason people used to go over there was to laugh at him. Guess he just doesn't like the personal criticism. I wouldn't doubt in addition to his shilling for HRC that his page views are in the tank as well.

Posted by Bubba | May 2, 2008 9:59 PM

One of the many interesting things about this contest is that Clinton clearly studied the successful primary campaigns of the likes of Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry, and basically tried to rerun those campaigns (with a healthy dose of Clinton restoration thrown in). So she is actually the first serious candidate in an open contest to use that strategy and lose (Bill Clinton didn't use that strategy in 1992, and was fortunate not to face a serious candidate using it).

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 10:42 PM

Should you care to combat evil this thread at Ezra's place is being tormented by trolls.

Posted by bjd | May 2, 2008 11:05 PM

Michael C., long posts that are lacking in evidence just make you look like the crazy guy at the train stop in Cambridge that runs after people trying to give the copies of "Revolutionary Worker."

"Right, and that metric is tightening, and if you guys stop yelling at her to get out of this race and let the primary schedule continue, that metric will continue to tighten. What's wrong with process?"

Her big win in Penn gave her what, like a net +6 delegates? Big whoop. All of her demographic advantages there gave her a 10 point win after starting out with a 24 point win. If she's losing this badly to the underdog that no one had heard of 5 years ago, how do you think she's going to do against McMaverick the War Hero(C)? I don't think she should get out of the race yet (but do think we should settle on a nominee within a week of the last primary) as there are still people who haven't voted, but she needs a miracle to turn things around. Meanwhile, the superdelegates have been breaking more for Obama than Clinton. Her only realistic path to the nomination is to get the supers to overturn the popular vote and delegate leader's win and give it to her out of fear, which will create a backlash that will give McCain a win in November by depressing Democratic turnout.

Posted by Reality Man | May 3, 2008 2:59 AM

Easy?

Let's see, the day of the PA primary, the NYT basically called her campaign every name in the book. Oh, yeah, I remember them going nutso on Edwards and all the rest like that, sure I do.

Just dropped by to remind myself how misogynists think. Thanks for the reality check!

Posted by LuigiDaMan | May 3, 2008 8:17 AM

Quick, pass the smelling salts! Get a grip, man. The Democrats don’t work in a straight line like the Republicans do when it comes to choosing a candidate, and you know that. No one has enough of anything to win yet, not even Precious, so stop whining. With the Democrats, the popular vote counts; so do the superdelegates, and they can use whatever parameter they wish before they weigh in. And, just for kicks, create a hurdle for Obama, one that starts with, “Given Obama’s wins in a dozen primaries in a row, how come he can’t win this race?” Try that.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Posted by fjschmitz | May 3, 2008 10:08 AM

fjschmitz,

Get cancer and die, asshole.

Civil enough for ya?

Posted by LarryM | May 3, 2008 10:11 AM

One of the many interesting things about this contest is that Clinton clearly studied the successful primary campaigns of the likes of Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry, and basically tried to rerun those campaigns (with a healthy dose of Clinton restoration thrown in). So she is actually the first serious candidate in an open contest to use that strategy and lose (Bill Clinton didn't use that strategy in 1992, and was fortunate not to face a serious candidate using it).

Could you elaborate more on this? While I agree with your assesssment that Hillary is using a Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry strategy, how is it that Bill did not? All four faced strong wine-track opposition but managed to score victory getting the party establishment and unions on their side. Mondale and Dukakis did it even while having the African American vote siphoned off by Jackson.

This was incidentally, one of the reasons that I was positively inclined towards Hillary: it seemed clear that she was using a winning, albeit hackneyed, campaign strategy. What was stunning was the degree to which she learned nothing when she realized that this wasn't going to work and instead just doubled-down.

Posted by Tyro | May 3, 2008 10:17 AM

Clinton is still in this race because - hold on to your panties, lads -

People keep voting for her.

Yup. Just look at PA: even people who said they thought Obama would be the nominee still VOTED FOR CLINTON.

In the meantime, because of his own missteps, Obama's lead has shrunk in can't-lose-NC from 23, to just 10 points. In less than a month. And even as the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party fall over themselves to profess their Obama-love, in the national polls, more and more voters prefer Clinton. And more and more, polls show Clinton beating McCain in a head-to-head, and McCain beating Obama in the same scenario.

Soooo... the Party leaders have decided that we are going to, by God, have Obama and like it. And the voters?

Well, the voters know what the leaders keep telling them to do (vote for Obama and close out the race decisvely). And yet...

...they keep voting for Clinton.

This is a WTF moment if there ever was one.

It's obvious that the Democratic Party poohbahs are determined to throw this election away. God only knows why.

Posted by Vanessa | May 3, 2008 2:00 PM

Reality man: do you have a super hero cape with a big r on it? or just a super hero complex.
What's funnier than a guy calling himself "Reality Man" and then posting over and over about straw man arguments.
You say my long post lacks facts.
here is the fact you missed:
obama can't get to 2025 without Ms. Clinton dropping out.
Here is another fact:
No one drops out with 1600+ delegates. If that isn't a fact then name the person who has ever dropped out with that many delegates.
Here is another fact: getting close with delegates is not the same as winning. He has to get his toe over the line or else it is a free-for-all at the convention.
Here is my opinion based on fact: He is not ready and he hasn't been able to close the deal.
you are backing a straw man.

And I'm the moderate here arguing for the moderate. The guy in cambridge handing out the communist rag was wearing tights and a cape with a big R on his chest. he and his argument was made of straw.