Matthew Yglesias (May 19, 2008) - Nothing is Over! (Politics)

At this point, Clinton's best bet is probably to stay in through PR & SD and then not try any kind of stunt. Dropping out earlier might have made some kind of sense after OH & TX, or after PA, but by this time why bother?

Posted by Tom Scudder | May 19, 2008 1:21 PM

I think Obama needs to lay off on this victory low. Especially since the polls in Oregon show the race to be tightening and a lot of Clinton supporters are pissed off with Obama.

Posted by MGJ | May 19, 2008 1:22 PM

I think the best bet is for Matthew Yglesias not to be a sexist creep and continue to snarl at Hillary Clinton. That is what I think.

I am so tired of the sexist tripe.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:25 PM

There's a lot of strategy here - this phenomenon of Clinton voters growing more dedicated as she gets closer to defeat is sort of unusual, and Obama might have a better chance of preventing Montana/South Dakota upset losses if he lets her play out the string.

However, if she winds up claiming, on June 2, that the Puerto Rico popular vote should decide who the Democratic nominee is... at that point I think we need a cane to take her off stage. Like, a real oak cane, wielded by a Vaudevillian with a straw hat.

Posted by David Weigel | May 19, 2008 1:27 PM

"by the math and on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

You're like a broken record. Math is an exact science: 2 + 2 is 4. Obama's at 2 + 1.7, and you're saying he's at 4. Unless you're a true dickhead or dumb as shit(take your pick), you wouldn't use this line of argument.

"be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen"

What stunt? Like winning the popular vote and forcing superdelegates to vote against the "popular will." Oh I forget, the real "will of the people" measure is the pledged delegates, right? What do I know, I'm just a dumb, over-educated 27-year-old.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 1:28 PM

If she's not attacking Obama then I don't really care whether HRC pretends to still have a chance at the nomination. I think Josh Marshall said something to the effect that Cliton has decided to stay in the primary despite the odds, and Obama has dropped out of the race to move on to the general election. Works for me... I'm ready for some McCain bashing as it's a lot more fun then what we've been going through the last few months.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | May 19, 2008 1:32 PM

I could not be more angry with Obama supporters, and I have been an Obama supporter, but the sexist tripe encouraged by snarling Yglesias and the like is too much.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:32 PM

"on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

Just like how "on the merits" Matthew thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

Yglesias just loves to declare Mission Accomplished.

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 1:33 PM

"by the math and on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

You're like a broken record. Math is an exact science: 2 + 2 is 4. Obama's at 2 + 1.7, and you're saying he's at 4. Unless you're a true dickhead or dumb as shit(take your pick), you wouldn't use this line of argument.

"be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen"

What stunt? Like winning the popular vote and forcing superdelegates to vote against the "popular will." Oh I forget, the real "will of the people" measure is the pledged delegates, right? What do I know, I'm just a dumb, over-educated 27-year-old.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 1:33 PM

"on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

Just like how "on the merits" Matthew thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

Yglesias just loves to declare Mission Accomplished.

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 1:35 PM

She's been running a bash-McCain campaign for the past week or so. And I haven't heard anything about "X counting so she should win". She's already running a campaign that's lost. But it's also only two or three weeks left. Just let it run the last few weeks, declare defeat and praise Obama, and thank the Democratic party for a robust primary system. There's definently some value to herself and her supporters for sticking to the fight until the end.

Posted by Alex | May 19, 2008 1:35 PM

I could not be more angry with Obama supporters, and I have been an Obama supporter, but the sexist tripe encouraged by snarling Yglesias and the like is too much.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:36 PM

"However, if she winds up claiming, on June 2, that the Puerto Rico popular vote should decide who the Democratic nominee is... at that point I think we need a cane to take her off stage. Like, a real oak cane, wielded by a Vaudevillian with a straw hat."

Or a gong.

Posted by Peter K. | May 19, 2008 1:38 PM

It looks likely that Obama tomorrow will pass the majority of delegates that are available overall, so he pretty much will be at 2+2=4. The worst he'll be at will be 2+1.9 repeating, which is pretty much equal to 4. Clinton's equation looks like 2+ magic = 4 + ponies at this point. Obama needs just 16 pledged delegates away from an absolute majority, which he should easily get tomorrow between Oregon and Kentucky. After that, all you have left to argue on is superdelegates, who have been breaking for Obama over Clinton as of late. Obama has passed her in superdelegates as well even after she entered this race with over a 100 point lead in superdelegates.

"I think the best bet is for Matthew Yglesias not to be a sexist creep and continue to snarl at Hillary Clinton. That is what I think.

I am so tired of the sexist tripe.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:25 PM"

I'm usually pretty quick to whip out the sexist card, including on behalf of Clinton (especially against Chris Matthews), but name one thing about this that was sexist.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:39 PM

sexist tripe? What sexist tripe?

Posted by bjd | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

Jennifer, I don't think you understand the word "snarling".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

I wouldn't say you're dumb, Israel, just a little misinformed.

You know how they call elections before _all_ the results are in, even though, say twenty-percent of precincts still haven't reported?

Like that.

Not that I think this much matters--our opinions or disagreements about who will or won't, or has or hasn't, won.

If Clinton beats Obama, she can beat McCain. If she can't, she can't.

If Obama beats Clinton, he can beat McCain. If he can't, he can't.

I guess we won't have to wait -too- long.

Posted by gussie | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

Just like how "on the merits" Matthew thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

So apparently did HRC. The difference, of course, is that HRC directly enabled this distaster with her vote on the AUMF (as did JE), whereas MY... has a blog.

Posted by SavageView | May 19, 2008 1:42 PM

I'm a bit leery of the idea that he's going to be speaking in Iowa on Tuesday night, as a kind of complete-the-circle thing. But Oregon is weird because it's all postal voting, so there's not the same 'election day' experience there.

He's also going to have the disadvantage of time zones: if he tries to gazump Clinton's walkover victory in Kentucky, that's going to look classless. So he'll have to wait his turn -- the deadline for returned ballots is 8pm Pacific.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2008 1:43 PM

"Dana Goldstein explains why Barack Obama won't be able to just "declare victory" after tomorrow's primaries. "

Well, today's email from the Obama campaign forecasts taking the lead in pledged delegates and, while it does not declare victory, it did promise a major speech and encourages all Obama supporters to watch.

Posted by Scott de B. | May 19, 2008 1:43 PM

Each time Yglesias and others post such sexist tripe, I come closer to deciding not to vote for President because of the attacks on Clinton.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Those accusing MY of sounding like broken record would be served better by not making double posts.

Though I agree it does not make much sense for Clinton to drop out now - that would be like exiting the marathon at the 25 mile mark.

Posted by MS | May 19, 2008 1:46 PM

What do I know, I'm just a dumb, over-educated 27-year-old.

Well I'd certainly agree you are dumb. Let me try to explain this to you. The rules of the Democratic party's nomination process are such that a combination of elected and Superdelegates determine the party's nominee: i.e., whoever ends up with the majority of these delegates will be the Democratic nominee for president. All of the major candidates were aware of these rules before voting began.

One of these candidates worked within the rules and currently maintains an insurmountable lead among total delegates. The other candidate continues to argue that some other metric should be used in determining the party's nominee. This line of argument ignores 2 key points. First, that under a different set of rules, candidate A would have campaigned in a different manner by trying to run up vote totals in favorable states, and/or trying to reduce candidate B's vote margin totals in other states. Second, the rules of the nominating contest were well known prior to the beginning of the contest.

Candidate B has nobody to blame but herself and her campaign staff for losing the nomination battle under the agreed upon rules. Candidate B could graciously accept that she has been bested and work hard to help Candidate A consolidate support within the party and win the general election. Candidate B has instead chosen to argue that, "I would have one under a different set of rules." While this could possibly be true (although, again, it ignores that Candidate A may have utilized a different set of strategies under different nominating rules), it is akin to arguing that the Georgetown Hoyas would have won the NCAA championship game in 1982 if Patrick Ewing had not been called for goaltending on Carolina's first several possessions.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 1:46 PM

I think the best bet is for Matthew Yglesias not to be a sexist creep and continue to snarl at Hillary Clinton. That is what I think. I am so tired of the sexist tripe.

There's a paradox here, because it is good for the Democratic Party if the resolution of the Clinton-Obama race doesn't leave Clinton supporters feeling cheated. So there's good reason not to answer points like this.

But on its merits, this is offensive. Personally, I don't mind if Clinton stays in the race (see this: http://dilan.blogspot.com/2008/05/if-hillary-wants-to-stay-in-let-her-i.html ).

However, the argument that anyone who calls for Hillary to get out is a sexist is both false and truly evil. It is false because one can make a perfectly valid feminist case for getting Hillary Clinton out-- women will benefit from a Democrat's election, Hillary is hurting the party at this point, etc. One can also make a valid, though more controversial, feminist case against Hillary Clinton's candidacy, i.e., that Hillary married into power, has too little experience, leapfrogged over far more qualified female politicians, and would enshrine a principle that the way for women to get ahead in politics is to marry well.

But worse than false, this sexism charge is a really mendacious argument. There are huge issues of sexism in society that deserve our attention. The pay gap is still huge. Abortion and contraception rights are under threat. Domestic violence is still a gigantic problem. Women are still forced to work a second shift in the home.

Making the test of sexism whether one supports Hillary Clinton or not trivializes the entire concept of feminism.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 19, 2008 1:47 PM

Jennifer,

What's sexist about what Matt said? You may find it insulting to Hillary Clinton, but there's no coded language there, just a level of frustration.

I think what Alex says is pretty valid, but after hearing Hillary Clinton say John Goddamned Fucking McCain 'passes the Commander-in-Chief test,' I can't blame anyone for being sick of hearing her.

Posted by Persia | May 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Jennifer:
So you'd rather John McBush be President? How childish is that?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 19, 2008 1:48 PM

"However, if she winds up claiming, on June 2, that the Puerto Rico popular vote should decide who the Democratic nominee is... at that point I think we need a cane to take her off stage. Like, a real oak cane, wielded by a Vaudevillian with a straw hat."

I have no words for this. Coming from an Obama supporter, the irony is asphyxiating.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 1:49 PM

Maybe Hillary is staying in on the off chance one of Huckabee's friends in the NRA will (no, she's not hoping for it) take care of her problem. There are probably several million whack-jobs with both the animus and the means to deliver Hillary the nomination. It's nauseating to contemplate but the dynamic of this election screams 1968, a very poor year to be revisiting.

Posted by steve duncan | May 19, 2008 1:50 PM

"Hillary married into power, has too little experience, leapfrogged over far more qualified female politicians, and would enshrine a principle that the way for women to get ahead in politics is to marry well."

Sexist tripe amid sexist tripe.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:51 PM

The memo went out a long time ago that any criticism of HRC is by definition "sexist". This does take on a certain "boy who cried wolf" quality, after a while, though, where it becomes harder to make a legitimate distinction between real sexist tripe and excuses made by the candidate and her supporters for underperformance or bad campaigning on her part.

I do think that the more Clinton talks about winning the nomination, the faster the SDs will endorse in some vain hope that she'll stop talking about winning the nomination. In fact, I expect that enough SDs will have endorsed Obama BEFORE THE END OF VOTING that he'll be able to claim the nomination outright by the end of the month.

Posted by JMS | May 19, 2008 1:52 PM

This thing going on right now is starting to remind me of why Truman decided that just dropping the bomb was preferable to clearing the Pacific one island after another.

Something needs to come in and end this thing, and while I'm all for Clinton staying in this to the end (or as long as she's willing to bankroll her own campaign), the fact that there now seems to be a concerted effort to paint any sign of acknowledgement from the Obama camp that he needs to pivot and engage McCain head on as arrogance is ridiculous. This line of thinking is in itself is reason for supers to start rolling out faster to end this thing very shortly. Hell, you're starting to hear from Clinton supporters that just having a big rally and moving to swing states is a sign of disrespect. Insanity.

Posted by dannity | May 19, 2008 1:54 PM

Hmmm. Chris Ford must be around here somewhere.

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 1:55 PM

I was watching Iron Man over the weekend (), and in the last thirty seconds of the film -- Stark, already given a script to follow to protect his identity as The Metal Guy, decides at the last minute to say, "Aw, to heck with it: I am Iron Man".

While I watched this, probably because I'd like to see the suspense ended and the energy of a united Democratic campaign started (not because it would be a good idea), I flashed on Obama doing something similar and just "declaring victory".

Oh, well. Nice image.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | May 19, 2008 1:55 PM

Persia, you just don't understand. For people like Jennifer, support for Obama is inherently sexist, and calling for Clinton to drop out because she's lost is being a snarling sexist creep. Of course, Obama is not going to "declare victory", just claim an insurmountable lead (50+% of total available) in pledged delegates. This means the only chance for HRC is to get the superdelegates to overcome the voters (who determine the pledged delegates), which would not happen, barring an Obama disaster (plane crash, video proof of infidelity, etc).

While it's never over 'til it's over, we are well into the "effectively over" stage.

Posted by Crusty Dem | May 19, 2008 1:57 PM

Sexist tripe amid sexist tripe.

Anger unencumbered by reason. Yeah, that's the way to discuss an important issue. VERY convincing.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM

Just read the hate-mogering insanity from these Obama supporters. No stunts here, just hatred of a woman.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM

"Hillary Clinton represents the status quo at best, and keeps us rooted in a place we need to move from. I've watched younger women come into their adult lives from a different set of experiences, and Hillary Clinton was not the president to make the transition to the newly inspired movement that we need," - Kate Michelman, NARAL.

I guess she hates women too.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

I don't hate women in general. But I'll make an exception for "Jennifer."

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

"One of these candidates worked within the rules and currently maintains an insurmountable lead among total delegates"

See, in the run up to the Iraq invasion 35% of FoxNews viewers believed that Saddam was to blame for 9/11. Our media has been as decieving in this primary, and now we have idiots regurgitating these talking points as truisms. Here's a clue: if you watch hardball or countdown, you're as dumb as FoxNews viewers circa Fall 2002 - Spring 2003.

Now, to unpack this thing, just a little bit. The 795 super delegates are not committed. They can switch in the first ballot, second ballot, third ballot, fourth ballot, etc. Get it? And none of this will happen until Convention time -- no matter what KO tells you -- and Andrew Sullivan wanna-be Matthew Yglesias.

See, I believed Chuck Todd when he told me early in the process, "let's take super delegates out of the tally because these are people who can change their mind last minute and it doesn't make sense to count them." This was back when HRC had a hefty super delegate lead. But now that Prince Barack passed her in super delegates "bring the super delegates back in the tally you idiot!!!!!!" We need to shut this thing down. Now all I hear is enlightened people such as yourself saying "he has an insurmountable delegate lead."

Again, let's wait for all popular votes to be cast. If she loses the popular vote: I'm cutting a $2,300 check for Prince Barack. If she wins the popular vote and is denied the nomination -- I may just stay at home, or send a $2,300 check to Nader, at least he believes in democracy.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

"Hillary married into power, has too little experience
I did not read that in Matt's post. Did he post it somewhere else? Do you have a link so we can verify Matt said that?

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 2:03 PM

@Israel - Mathematicians round up all the time. In the mathematical universe where only whole numbers count, 2 + 1.7 does indeed = 4.

@Jennifer - Saying that Hillary Clinton received less votes and should therefore concede the nomination is not sexist. Nothing in Matthew's comments had anything to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman, only that she didn't obtain enough votes to win.

If you want, I can give you something to complain about:

Hillary Clinton should go back to the kitchen and bake me a pie.

There, complain away.

Posted by Trigger | May 19, 2008 2:04 PM

I've noticed a distinct lack of friendly fire coming directly from the Clinton camp. Let the primary go on. I mean, perish the thought that for once, all of the states holding primaries and caucuses - every single one of them - really does matter. The Obama supporters can't actually just [i]stay home[/i], or else they cede the vote to Clinton. The Clinton supporters can't actually just stay home, or Obama really does clinch the nomination, for real, no take-backs. Is there a single state that one or the other candidate hasn't visited, and made them feel like they're vitally important (because, you know, they really are this time around)? The voters in every single state are now familiar with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are (at the very least) passingly familiar with both of their policy proposals. The Democratic Party has a bigger list of potential donors than ever, because they can see who came out when it was really important. None of that would have happened if the race had been declared over after Super Tuesday.

Posted by Tel | May 19, 2008 2:05 PM

Jennifer: What is sexist about Matt's post? Don't get me wrong, a lot of "sexist tripe" has been uttered about Clinton during this campaign. But I don't see anything particularly sexist in Matt's post.

Posted by Led | May 19, 2008 2:08 PM

This is silly. Matt and Dana are too easily intimidated by petulant threats and stubborn attachments and resentments that will be gone in a month once this thing is over. Obama doesn't have to engage in an explicit effort to "force Clinton out before she is prepared to concede." But he does need to keep the pressure on by continuing to communicate the message to the public that he is going to be the nominee, by transitioning to the general election, and by making sure the media coverage focuses on where this race actually stands rather than on the Clinton spin that it is still wide open. If the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet the Clinton people would be doing precisely the same thing.

Outside of the circles of political blogs and other close watchers of the election, most people don't know the mathematics of what is happening. If Obama secures a majority of pledged delegates tomorrow, then he damn well better communicate the message that that is precisely what just happened, and that it is vitally important to the outcome of the race. Call this "declaring victory" if you want. This is especially important given that the Kentucky returns are going to come in early in the evening in most parts of the country, and the Oregon returns late. So Obama needs to do something early in the evening to take the attention off Kentucky.

By the way, just when do you think Clinton will be "prepared to concede"? Never. She will never quit. Bringing an end to the distracting Clinton cannot depend on fussing about what Clinton is or is not "prepared" to do. It will require some tough politics aimed at drying up her money, and creating a windfall of high-level public support and switched allegiances to get the party behind him. Clinton probably isn't going to quit. She is too tenaciously addicted to fighting, and doesn't have it in her to do the thing which would be best for her in the end. She is just going to fade into deeper and deeper irrelevance. Obama can't wait around forever while she trots out the new daily reason for not letting go.

At this stage, anything Obama does to convey the accurate message that he will be the nominee and that the race is over is going to be perceived as a slight or an insult or a lack of respect by a number of Clinton supporters. That's just where they are psychologically right now. Indeed, the whole Obama campaign is an insult and lack of respect from where they sit, because it is always galling for the old guard to experience a changing of the guard accomplished by the new, young upstart. But that's tough. I know it hurts to lose, but this race will never end if these supporters are babied forever. They have been cut, but have to get over it. And it is probably better just to yank the Band-aid off in one fast yank than with a slow gradual peel.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 19, 2008 2:09 PM

We get it Jennifer. You think everyone is being sexist. Your point, such as it is, could not be clearer. If you are actually interested in convincing anyone as to why your point of view is correct, you will eventually have to actually make an argument rather than just a series of repeated assertions. But you don't seem too interested in that. Anyway, I think we can all agree that your thoughts on this matter are crystal clear.

Posted by brent | May 19, 2008 2:10 PM

"@Israel - Mathematicians round up all the time. In the mathematical universe where only whole numbers count, 2 + 1.7 does indeed = 4."

Okay, she's at 2 + 1.58. They both have 4!!!

Note: there was a time when this blog countained actual insight. Not so much from MY, but from his commenters. He's just an over-educated 27-year-old.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 2:11 PM

Each time Yglesias and others post such sexist tripe, I come closer to deciding not to vote for President because of the attacks on Clinton.

Sounds great to me. I don't idiots should be *prevented* from voting, but I love the idea of their voluntarily choosing not to.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 19, 2008 2:13 PM

Jennifer,

Your example of MY's sexism is that he points out, correctly, that one of Senator Clinton's claims to being the most experienced candidates is the experience of being married to Bill for so many years, including while he was President.

I don't think there's any doubt that she was an influential advisor during those years, on political and substantive issues, probably one of the top two or three. However, I see very little analysis by her or her partisans, or her opponents for that matter, regarding the substance of her advice, (as we might for example with someone like Karl Rove) but instead, mostly the assumption that she somehow partook, through marriage, in the glories of Bill's presidency.

As for whether her 7+ years of senatorial service from 2000 on does or does not leave her less qualified than other women politicians is a harder call. I tend to think, for example, that the combination of time as a White House advisor plus some years of senatoring puts her ahead of others, like Feinstein or Mikulski with more years in the Senate.

However, the problem is that from practically the year 2000 on, Senator Clinton keeps getting talked about as a presidential candidate not because of much to point to in terms of her own accomplishments, but because of her association with President Clinton.

And I think MY is right to point to that as a sexist assumption in its own right. If you look at the history of women elected as senators, governors or congresspersons up through the mid-70's a large proportion got there because their husband died or (like George Wallace hampered by term restrictions) put their wife up for office.

You might disagree as to whether Senator Clinton fits into this category. But MY was not out of line in suggesting it.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 2:14 PM

"I don't hate women in general. But I'll make an exception for "Jennifer.""

From the looks of things, this 'Jennifer' is vanishingly unlikely to be a woman. Far more likely to be a 'big-boned' basement dwelling wingnut out trolling for a reaction.

Posted by Tony J | May 19, 2008 2:18 PM

Israel. I will say this again, and I'll use small words so you can understand. Hillary Clinton can not win the majority of pledged delegates under any remotely reasonable circumstances (i.e. excepting death of the leading candidate or unimaginable scandal). (sorry. used big words afterall)

Arguing that the Superdelegates may change their votes on the ballots does not change this fact. The fact that you are counting on Superdelegates changing their votes on 1st, 2nd, 3rd ballots proves Matthew's original point. Hillary Clinton does not have a path to the nomination, and as such, she should bow out so we can consolidate Democratic support and move forward.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 2:18 PM

You might disagree as to whether Senator Clinton fits into this category. But MY was not out of line in suggesting it.

For the record, Matt didn't suggest it and I, for one, doubt he would even make such an argument. Further, Jennifer has yet to provide any example of Matt making any statement that could be described as sexist. She has merely repeated the charge.

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

Yglesias just loves to declare Mission Accomplished.

Uh huh. Tell us, Petey, do you happen to have any money at Intrade riding on Obama getting the nomination?

Also, while I think Matt was wrong to support the war, comparing that support to declaring "Mission Accomplished" is lazy and inapt.

Posted by live | May 19, 2008 2:21 PM

Israel,

When you count popular votes will you be counting any votes for Obama in Michigan? In Florida where neither candidate campaigned and some people, informed ahead of time that the vote would not count, didn't vote?

Will you count any votes for caucus states that did not report? If you don't count these states, will you at least count Obama's 40,000 vote margin in Washington State's meaningless post caucus primary?

Popular vote is a slipper metric. If that's the basis for your decision you should explain quite clearly what assumptions you make in counting it and why.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 2:22 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e6Lq771TVm4

That campaign is definitely deceased.

It's passed on. This campaign is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet it's maker. This is a late campaign. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in piece. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-candidate.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 2:28 PM

Anyone claiming with a straight face that Hillary will win the popular vote is an idiot, overeducated or not.

Only in her sociopathic carnival world does it seem fair to: a) demand inclusion of her votes from two renegade states after it became apparent that she couldn't win without them; b) exclude any "non-Hillary" protest votes from Obama's tally despite his absence on the Michigan ballot; c) include nearly three millions votes from Puerto Rico even though they will be ineligible for the November election; and d) deliberately ignore the fact that several caucus states aren't represented whatsoever in the popular vote total.

Back away from the funny mirrors, Israel. They're distorting your view of reality.

An overwhelming majority of Americans ... not just Democrats or independents; but all Americans ... want to bury the stagnant, dynastic politics of the Bush and Clinton families.

Joyfully bury. For ever and ever.

Only self-deluders and sycophants think otherwise.

Posted by Lurker No. 37 | May 19, 2008 2:28 PM

Arguing that the Superdelegates may change their votes on the ballot
It might help if "Israel" had an example of any movement in that direction. None exits.
Sorry "Israel", it's over. Please vote democratic in November.

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

People like Israel are going through something akin to a denial phase. You can't really blame them for being bitter, and kicking them while they are down isn't terribly cricket. Even if they are annoying.

Posted by hum | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

Of course on the merits it's still true that Hillary Clinton's best bet, both for the country and for her own reputation, would be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen.

Call me Pollyanna, but the way the primary season has gone for the past month or so makes the phrase "crazy like a fox" come to mind. The primaries haven't gone on this long or been contested in this many states in my lifetime. How much money would Obama be raising right now if the Democratic Party nomination was already decided and it was just the standard, predictable Democrat vs. Republican race? How much press coverage would McCain be getting? How much new voter registration would we have had? How many people voted in the Democratic Party primary (therefore making them more likely to support the party in the general election) who wouldn't have otherwise?

It's impossible to answer those questions for certain, of course, but it looks to me like the answers are less, more, less and less. This ongoing race has made fundraising a constant necessity, kept the Democratic Party in the news constantly and got people involved who haven't been before. Thank you, Clinton.

Posted by Cyrus | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

peace, that is. whoops.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 2:30 PM

Brent,

Thanks for the clarification. I did not stop to check whether MY actually said it. It just didn't seem to me so clear it was sexist even if he had.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 2:31 PM

Lmao, it's amazing how being sexist went from 'not treating Hillary Clinton like any other candidate' to 'treating Hillary Clinton like any other candidate'.

I'm going to refer to Jennifer as a racist from now on. Sure, she hasn't said anything to indicate that she's racist, but who cares! She clearly dislikes Obama, and by her own logic, there can be no other possible reason other than that she hates black people.

Posted by soullite | May 19, 2008 2:36 PM

Over:
Gallup Daily: Obama Opens Up 16-Point Lead, Biggest Yet
Lead is now 55% to 39% over Clinton

SurveyUSA poll of Oregon: Obama 55%, Clinton 42%.

Geraldine and Jennifer, sweeties, you can kiss my...

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 2:43 PM

"I don't hate women in general. But I'll make an exception for "Jennifer."" From the looks of things, this 'Jennifer' is vanishingly unlikely to be a woman. Far more likely to be a 'big-boned' basement dwelling wingnut out trolling for a reaction.

Hate is not appropriate here. Rather, pity. Of course 'Jennifer' is fake, probably not a woman and definitely a troll. It's just sad. Whoever 'Jennifer' is despises themself enough as it is. I'd be glad if they really weren't going to vote, though. Sadly, that's probably not true either.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 19, 2008 2:47 PM

Just once, I'd like to see a Clinton supporter say something good about Clinton, instead of telling me why I'm wrong to support the other guy. Other than that the Democratic party will be led by the corrupt America-hating crypto-Muslim cultist I happen to mindlessly support, I really have no idea why it's so important to some that Clinton win the primaries.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | May 19, 2008 2:59 PM

Agreeing with Cyrus, I'd venture farther to say that Clinton is not the compulsive hack that she's implied to be in some posts. First, she's a gifted person and has much the same position on the issues as Obama, so what's to disagree with there. Second, a majestic concession speech by Clinton, whenever she makes it, has huge political value both to the Democratic party (McCain & the other Republicans will quail) and to Clinton's career. How long she waits is her judgment call, and we may disagree with her, but her career judgment heretofore is hard to fault.

Posted by russell | May 19, 2008 3:03 PM

"Just read the hate-mogering insanity from these Obama supporters. No stunts here, just hatred of a woman.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM"

That strikes me as very sexist - you're arguing that Clinton should be defined by her gender such that everything that she does, and any comment on her, is a reflection on all women.

That's just silly.

Is any criticism of any woman sexist? Even Phyllis Schlafly?

Posted by justaguy | May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

southpaw get's the "Excellent Monty Python Reference" prize.

Posted by KevinD | May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

How long she waits is her judgment call, and we may disagree with her, but her career judgment heretofore is hard to fault.

I don't really disagree, and I hate to pile on. But:

Mark Penn.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

Maybe Hillary is staying in to see who will support her to the very end, consolidating her support both in the public sphere and in Washington. in 2016 Hillary will still be younger than McCain so she has plenty of time to run again. The Clintons have always focused on a core group of power and support. I think Hillary's continuation in this race is to do that, focus that support down to the most loyal, identify them and use them over the next 4 to 8 years to gain the inevitable foothold on the nomination she assumed she had this time around.

Posted by tom.a | May 19, 2008 3:10 PM

Maybe Hillary is staying in to see who will support her to the very end, consolidating her support both in the public sphere and in Washington.

The problem with this strategy (if this is, in fact, her intention) is that without power, the Clintons have nothing of value to offer these core supporters. An Obama presidency has the potential to drastically re-shape many of Washington's conventional power structures, particularly within the Democratic party. Even die hard Clinton loyalists would be foolish to shut themselves out of this new wave (should it develop). It also seems unlikely that even if Clinton were to somehow maintain all of her loyal support and institutional advantages that they would be as valuable to her in 2012 or 2016. This is several lifetimes in politics. I can't picture a scenario in which these groups would be more likely to deliver her the nomination than they were in this cycle.

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

On the popular vote.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/19/131842/038

I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable. I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 3:22 PM

I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

That reall is a shame, because we will need every Democrat to vote for our nominee in November. Hope we can count on your support.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 3:27 PM

Meh, Hillary doesn't seem to be doing very much damage at the moment. Of course, her dropping out now might bring some of her more recalcitrant supporters into the fold more quickly, but then again, they might be more satisfied if she stays in until all the primaries are over, the MI/FL situation is resolved, and defeat by every reasonable metric is accepted. Of course, there are a few true dead enders, but they're not coming back anyway.

She's waving her arms desperately to get attention, but she's been laying off Obama for the most part recently. If Obama is ignoring Clinton to go after McCain/Bush, and Clinton is spending most of her time making a positive case for herself and attacking McCain/Bush (not ignoring Obama entirely, but at least not being too egregious in the attacks), I'm fine with her staying in.

Posted by Kraz | May 19, 2008 3:30 PM

in 2016 Hillary will still be younger than McCain so she has plenty of time to run again.

If HRC doesn't win now, she never will, which is why she's still in the race. Obama will serve 2 terms, and after what Hillary has done in this primary her chances of defeating an incumbent VP are slim to none. Her next reasonable chance will be in 12 to 16 years, and that isn't going to happen.

Posted by justinb | May 19, 2008 3:51 PM

Israel | May 19, 2008 3:22 PM :: I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable. I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

Poor Israel.

Most objective commentators have the good sense to avoid linking themselves to Talk Left.

Watch the door on the way out sir ... and good riddance.

Posted by Lurker No 37 | May 19, 2008 3:52 PM

Of course on the merits it's still true that Hillary Clinton's best bet, both for the country and for her own reputation, would be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen.

This statement, while true, only acknowledges two possibilities. A better scenario than either of these would be for Clinton to stay in through the rest of the primaries and then bow out gracefully. I'm not sure why her "grace" period should expire before the primaries are over. No matter her actual reasons, if she dropped out before June 3 many of her supporters would think she was forced out and would become more likely to sit out in November. Since she has become much more conciliatory since May 6 there really isn't any harm done by her staying in. And with regard to Clinton herself, it's difficult to pivot from a legitimate shot at the nomination to enthusiastically supporting the guy who prevented you from getting it (and she will have to endorse at the same time she drops out). Better to gradually turn around and make a more sincere endorsement once you have adjusted to reality.

Posted by ibid | May 19, 2008 3:53 PM

I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable. I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

Follow Armando's link, look at the numbers. He's being disingenuous here, I think.

Posted by justinb | May 19, 2008 3:54 PM

Nothing is Over!

Clinton Supporter: "Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

Obama Supporter: "Germans?"

Yglesias: "Forget it, (s)he's rolling."

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 4:00 PM

Armando disingenuous? No way!

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 4:01 PM

Jennifer, you seem to understand sexism as well as Spinal Tap did.

Posted by James | May 19, 2008 4:04 PM

Israel,

Thanks for coming back and responding. I have a simple factual question I could not get from Talk Left or Real Clear Politics that perhaps you can help me with.

Real Clear Politics states: {sorry I don't know HTML codes}

"The estimate from these four Caucus states [Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine] where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)"

However, Obama won Iowa and Maine. He came very close in Nevada. His margin in the Washington primary was approximately 40,000+. Does this imply that his estimated margin from Iowa, Maine and Nevada, taken together, was around 20,000? (50,000 less than 110,224 = 60,224 - 40,000 from Washington primary = approx. 20,000) This seem strangely low.

I could not figure out how RCP did the math. Perhaps you, or someone else here can help.

Though I still prefer the pledged delegate metric myself.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 4:11 PM

ibid said... A better scenario than either of these would be for Clinton to stay in through the rest of the primaries and then bow out gracefully.

I think this is what will happen, and it is a reasonable approach. I honestly thought she'd scratch and claw all the way to the convention, but $20 million worth of campaign debt has changed my mind. There is simply no way she can hang on that long without pouring more of their own cash into a lost cause, while praying for a lightning bolt (figuratively).

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 4:17 PM

Help us out here, Jennifer: Is there any way to express one's support without being sexist, under your definition?

Tougher question: Is there any way to point out that the odds of Hillary Clinton winning the nomination at this point are astronomically low without something catastrophically bad happening to Obama and not be sexist?

Or are we just doomed?

Posted by Adam Villani | May 19, 2008 4:18 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:19 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:25 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:28 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:32 PM

I also believe it doesn't really matter exactly when Clinton admits she has lost, even if it takes until the convention. What will matter most is whether the Clintons endorse and campaign for Obama once that point arrives. A secondary issue would have been whether she would continue to echo McCain's attacks on Obama and whether the media would have continued to give those attacks free air time, but it looks like at least the media is no longer playing that game, and maybe not Clinton either.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 4:32 PM

Clearly, Obama's supporters shouldn't be forced to work with people they aren't comfortable with, like the racists who support Hillary. I support this 100%.

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:37 PM

Mea culpa,

I finally read RCP more closely. The 110,224 Obama vote is of course his margin of victory from the caucus states not his total vote. Thus that margin could go down if Washington primary results are used, instead of an estimate based on the caucus.

Sigh. Sorry to be publicly dim.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 4:39 PM

A serious challenge to Clinton supporters: is there a way to criticize Clinton, her campaign, or any aspect of her current political persona without being accused of sexism?

Posted by Starscream | May 19, 2008 4:41 PM

"I finally read RCP more closely. The 110,224 Obama vote is of course his margin of victory from the caucus states not his total vote. Thus that margin could go down if Washington primary results are used, instead of an estimate based on the caucus."

Which makes no sense, as the vote determines exactly zero in the Democratic nominating process.

Posted by Starscream | May 19, 2008 4:43 PM

Other victims of "misogyny" apparently include Mitt Romney:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4257908&page=1

Brett Favre:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=725585

Nuclear power plants:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-77035032.html

And so on.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 4:48 PM

Lambert, the process of trying to talk about Hillary Clinton without being accused of sexism is like Mr. Burns telling you that he'll hear your plea for keeping your job if you don't use the letter "e".

Everything is a dogwhistle.

Incidentally, here are some synonyms for graceful:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/graceful

"Subservient" is not among them.

Here is the definition for graceful:

Nothing is Over!

Comments (152)