Now We Know

Tim Russert just said "we now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be." I certainly agree with that, but I do wonder why it's just now dawning on the TV talking heads. March 4 was Clinton's chance to make up the ground she lost in February, and she wasn't able to do it. We knew as of March 5 who the nominee was going to be.

Oh well. Glad to see more folks are realizing, and maybe we can wind this thing down. I guess I should try to go to bed before flying to California tomorrow for the Nixon Library event (be there!).

Comments

If she doesn't drop out by Friday, I'll have lost whatever residual respect I had for her.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 12:18 AM

We actually knew after Super Tuesday. At that point, the basic dynamics of the race and the nature of their respective coalitions were well-established. So, it was possible to calculate within a reasonable range how many more pledged delegates Clinton could win in the remaining contests. And once you did that, it was clear that she had failed to win enough delegates on Super Tuesday to win the overall contest.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:20 AM

credit where it's due - Chuck Todd has been saying it for months.

Posted by Ready for change | May 7, 2008 12:20 AM

We knew it after Iowa!

Posted by Al | May 7, 2008 12:23 AM

I demand a Jackson 5 montage from the nets! We're going back to Indiana...

Posted by Tim | May 7, 2008 12:23 AM

It would be pretty sweet if Indiana finally did pull through for Obama, after Hillary made such a big deal earlier in the evening that it was the tiebreaker...

Posted by McKingford | May 7, 2008 12:26 AM

Matt Yglesias, you have no idea what you're talking about. March 5th?? There were at least one political disaster since then, possibly two or three (Reverend Wright, Bittergate, etc.), that could have outright imploded the Obama campaign if they hadn't handled them in the right way.

I hate to say it, but Tim Russert is right and you are not. Clinton always had a chance, even a decent chance, of getting the nomination before tonight. But now it's over.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2008 12:27 AM

Seriously, when you're at the Nixon library, check out the mugs....

Posted by Roddy McCorley | May 7, 2008 12:29 AM

Seriously, when you're at the Nixon library, check out the mugs....

Posted by Roddy McCorley | May 7, 2008 12:29 AM

Obama's eventual victory was indeed a good bet after Iowa, but I also think there was some uncertainty at that point, such as where the Edwards voters would head and what would happen when the campaigns did not have months to work a state.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:30 AM

but I also think there was some uncertainty at that point, such as where the Edwards voters would head and what would happen when the campaigns did not have months to work a state.

But that's back when Petey was assuring us that it was Edwards who was keeping Obama alive by splitting Hillary's vote.

Man, aside from being an obnoxious pill, is that guy wrong about everything...

Posted by McKingford | May 7, 2008 12:38 AM

There were at least one political disaster since then, possibly two or three (Reverend Wright, Bittergate, etc.), that could have outright imploded the Obama campaign if they hadn't handled them in the right way.

This evaluates the counterfactuals all wrong. It was entirely foreseeable that Obama would handle all that stuff well. You know why? Because he's Barack Obama, with all the skills and political talents that Barack Obama has, combined with a fairly intelligent campaign apparatus. Build that into the case, and the implosion of the Obama campaign in the face of Wright or Bittergate looks pretty implausible. It would've taken a pretty big scandal, probably involving his penis entering something that is not part of his wife, to defeat a politician with those talents.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2008 12:38 AM

By the way, Chuck Todd has indeed been a voice of sanity (or at least math literacy). But to be fair, I remember his reporting from Super Tuesday, and he was basically given the answer: both campaigns had roughly similar estimates of what would likely happen after Super Tuesday, which gave them roughly similar estimates of how close Obama needed to keep it on Super Tuesday to stay in contention

And then Obama actually got more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday. Todd appropriately combined that result with what both campaigns had told him beforehand, and came up with Obama very likely winning the nomination. Of course, the Clinton Campaign just tried to drop all that down the memory hole, but Todd inconveniently refused to play along.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:39 AM

Obama Cyberbullies & Pundits

You are not going to dictate this election. Hillary is being held to a different standard than any other presidential candidate. Obama is stealing the election if the votes from MI and Fl are not counted. The Democratic Party is brain dead if they think these voters can be shut out of the process.

Something is awfully crooked in Lake County, IN. That's the largest county and the votes will not be tallied until tomorrow.

Presidential candidates from Reagan, Brown, Jackson, Kennedy, and Hart all went to the convention. No one was telling them to drop out.

This is the first election where the pundits such as Matt, Russert, Halperin, and so on have taken it upon themselves to tell one candidate to drop out. That's not your job Matt. The most important quality a journalist has is trust. Matt, you've prostitued your profession.

The 15,000,000 voters that voted for Hillary will not let her quit. It is going to the convention.

If Obama manages to steal this nomination, a whole coalition of groups will come together defeat his candidacy.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 12:44 AM

Because when the dufusses were deciding the storyline on March 4th, the results of the caucuses weren't known, so the spin was that Hillary had won both Ohio and Texas (instead of just Ohio). You can't push someone out if they've just won the two biggest prizes remaining. So we suffered through to PA, and then she won there. Tonight's the first point since February where she's had a clear loss on the books before bedtime.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | May 7, 2008 12:44 AM

Any events in Northern California?

Posted by Lee | May 7, 2008 12:46 AM

"The 15,000,000 voters that voted for Hillary will not let her quit. It is going to the convention.

If Obama manages to steal this nomination, a whole coalition of groups will come together defeat his candidacy."

As I've said before, moron EWard does not care about healthcare, getting out of Iraq, climate change, a new energy policy, or the Supreme Court. He/she only cares about Hillary. Despicable.

------

Neil the Ethical Werewolf: Awesome name. Does that mean you only hunt criminals every full moon or something?

Posted by 55 | May 7, 2008 12:49 AM

Petey was assuring us that it was Edwards who was keeping Obama alive by splitting Hillary's vote.

Well, something like that was actually correct. Obama probably would've had a lower margin of victory in SC without Edwards distracting white folks so that Obama could ride black turnout to a landslide victory. It was one of the reasons I was sad to see Edwards drop out -- if he'd stayed in through Super Tuesday, this race could've ended after TX and OH.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2008 12:51 AM

I said, right on this blog, on the eve of Super Tuesday that Clinton just wasn't positioned to win ugly. And yeah, Chuck Todd's pure nerdy goodness was very welcome here.

Clinton always had a chance, even a decent chance, of getting the nomination before tonight.

She did, but only because the continued primaries created space between them for a dead girl / live boy situation. I've said this repeatedly, but after February's primaries, it became a situation where only Clinton was in a position to concede with grace. If Obama were to lose the nomination, it would be a career-ending loss.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 12:52 AM

Anthony,

Unless you actually remember Wyoming and Mississippi (and Guam, but even I don't really count Guam).

And generally, the whole idea of "winning big prizes" is inapplicable, since these contests aren't winner-takes-all. So, the fact that the media went along with that invalid framing for so long was really a matter of choice on their part.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:53 AM

You could foresee it, sure. Your foresight might even be right. But there's a big difference between predicting an uncertain result correctly and knowing something with great certainty. Actually the real solid bet in politics is that shit always happens--that some sort of scandal or gaffe would eventually engulf the Obama campaign when he became the frontrunner. As has been illustrated so vividly this election cycle, two months is a lifetime in politics. The open question was always how he would handle that inevitable scandal/gaffe, how he would handle the position of frontrunner. I don't see how you could have possibly KNOWN (as opposed to predicting) back on March 5th that Obama would survive something like the Reverend Wright scandal. I could very easily see him screwing it up badly--he ended up rising to the occasion, but we couldn't have known beforehand that he would, nor had he ever been tested like that in a comparable moment.

P.S. I just remembered that Petey was exhorting us a few weeks back to buy Clinton shares on Intrade. I wonder how much money he lost tonight? Poor guy.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2008 12:54 AM

Seriously, when you're at the Nixon library, check out the mugs....

I didn't know Nixon was actually arrested. I mean, he wasn't even impeached....

Wait, you mean in the gift shop, not the museum.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 7, 2008 12:55 AM

I'll give EWard some credit, most of the Hillary supporters are keeping quiet tonight, at least he still believes. He's demented and delusional, of course, but he still belives.

Let me clue you in on a couple things, though, Mr. Ward. You Hilary voters don't get a say as to her decision as to whether to go forward. And there are some encouraging signs that she is starting to see the light.

And if she does withdraw, there will be a deal made to seat Florida and Michigan, so that little problem won't exist.

As for your grand coalition, I'd be curious to know which groups you are referring to. Almost all of Hillary's institutional support will support Obama as soon as he is the nominee.

Will some of her voters stay home or vote for McCain? A few, sure. But if history is any guide, far, far fewer of them than current polling would suggest.

But hey, man, if you want to see Iran invaded, etc., etc., you go ahead and vote for McCain. That will show them.

Posted by LarryM | May 7, 2008 12:59 AM

Hillary is being held to a different standard than any other presidential candidate.

Indeed, a lesser one - one where she can lose election after election and still expect the media to entertain her arrogant notion that she's still a serious contender for the White House.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 1:01 AM

It's over, folks. She's canceled all public appearances tomorrow.

Posted by Ted | May 7, 2008 1:03 AM

Obviously, one always has to qualify one's political predictions with the possibility that some unexpected external event will change the fundamental nature of the contest. But the possibility of Clinton herself doing anything to keep Obama from winning, meaning in the absence of such an external event, was eliminated on Super Tuesday.

Incidentally, I personally do not think the Reverend Wright stuff was really such an external event. Indeed, even with the Clinton Campaign, the GOP, and the media all doing everything they could to make it into such an event, they failed to significantly change the nature of the contest.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 1:06 AM

Obama is unqualified to be President. Three years in the Senate and spending your entire time running for President does not qualify him for this office.

Everytime the Obama cyberbullies open their mouths with the name calling it just makes the case against Obama. There are some decent Obama supporters.

You cannot discount the supporters of Hillary! This is going to the convention. I will vote for McCain, donate money to the Republican Party and so will most of her supporters, if he manages to steal the nomination.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 1:13 AM

@EWard: No one has discounted her supporters. Rather, they've simply been counted. And there haven't been enough of them. Which is why she doesn't get to be the nominee.

Posted by moff | May 7, 2008 1:17 AM

There is a large rift in the Democratic party. It once was the party of the working class and now it is trying to remake itself. It won't work. This fight should go all the way to the convention.

Posted by endodoc79 | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

"There are some decent Obama supporters."

And there are some decent Clinton supporters. But one who vows to actively work to defeat the Democrat- not just stay home- is not one of them.

Posted by JD | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

There is no need for Hillary to quit. Understand that when the media is biased (which it is), the opponent spends twice as much money and still cannot prevent her from coming back (which he does),and she still keeps going with men slamming her at ever turn ... well, that is a win. And with each win she is gaining ground. Boys, my mom always said not to pick on the girls ... didn't yours?

You say Hillary can't win the nomination. Well, the truth is that the Democratic Party can't win the GE without her. Most of her supporters will vote for McCain or not vote. So the DNC should tell your wet behind the ears excuse of a man to sit down and take 2nd so that Hillary can wipe this up, or you can expect the Republicans to stay in the White House.

Incidentally Reverend Wright did extreme damage to the reputation of the unknown image of the Mr. Obama

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

There is no need for Hillary to quit. Understand that when the media is biased (which it is), the opponent spends twice as much money and still cannot prevent her from coming back (which he does),and she still keeps going with men slamming her at ever turn ... well, that is a win. And with each win she is gaining ground. Boys, my mom always said not to pick on the girls ... didn't yours?

You say Hillary can't win the nomination. Well, the truth is that the Democratic Party can't win the GE without her. Most of her supporters will vote for McCain or not vote. So the DNC should tell your wet behind the ears excuse of a man to sit down and take 2nd so that Hillary can wipe this up, or you can expect the Republicans to stay in the White House.

Incidentally Reverend Wright did extreme damage to the reputation of the unknown image of the Mr. Obama

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

Does that mean you only hunt criminals every full moon or something?

Actually, I'm going into a job as a philosophy professor, and ethics is my specialty. But if you want to see what happened to me on a full moon night in late December, back when Edwards was still in the race, I made a video...

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2008 1:22 AM

Tonight's the first point since February where she's had a clear loss on the books before bedtime.

Hmm, well, taking as givens that Wyoming doesn't count because it's small and Mississippi doesn't count because it's full of you know what, that's true. But no candidate named "Smith" could have sustained that losing streak in February without her party and the media pulling the plug on her.

It has, in any case, been fairly certain that Clinton would not be the nominee since at least mid-Feb. Not that Obama would certainly be the nominee, which is not equivalent to Clinton not being the nominee; but rather, any plausible scenario that led to Obama not getting the nomination would not necessarily have led to Clinton getting the nomination.

So it wasn't just that Clinton's probability of being the nominee was vanishingly small (a fraction of a percent, really), but that her probability of being the nominee conditional on Obama not being the nominee was also well short of 1.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 7, 2008 1:23 AM

"Boys, my mom always said not to pick on the girls ... didn't yours?"

I'd say Bill Clinton has gotten just as much criticism as she has.

Posted by 55 | May 7, 2008 1:23 AM

I will work for any candidate that is worthy of this office. If Hillary is not the nominee, Senator McCain is more prepared to be President than Obama. That's my duty to elect the most qualified person.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 1:28 AM

I put the chances of Obama being elected president at 0.1%. This all would be extremely humorous for me if not for the fact that that means President McCain.

Posted by TLB | May 7, 2008 1:31 AM

Eward is an idiot, but he's also right.

This IS going to the convention - and BEYOND with LAWSUITS from Clinton.

She will not drop out. She will not drop out even if Gore and Carter and the DNC leadership tell her to. She will not drop out even if the DNC files suit against her somehow to force her to, if they can.

This woman intends to see Obama lose and a Republican win. It's that simple. There's no other explanation except stupidity (and she's not stupid) or pure ego (more likely, but not good enough) to justify this behavior.

She thinks that if she can get Obama to lose that she will be a shoe-in in 2012. In reality, she will be treated like Ralph Nader by then.

So that's my prediction: she goes to the convention and beyond.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 1:32 AM

Understand that when the media is biased (which it is), the opponent spends twice as much money and still cannot prevent her from coming back (which he does),and she still keeps going with men slamming her at ever turn ... well, that is a win.

Except in any sense that matters.

What did you think she was going to do in the general? Persevere her way to the White House? I realize that her supporters have always viewed her as the Once and Future Queen, but you have to do more than simply tread water to win a general election.

You actually have to convince people to vote for you. She's failed to do that in the requisite numbers, so far. Obama has beaten her. There's no shame in the loss; simply in being too self-centered to see it.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 1:37 AM

EWard -

Are there concrete policy issues that made you support Clinton - health care, foreign policy, etc?

If so, how is it that McCain is better than Obama on those issues?

You support Clinton on setting a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq, but would rather have McCain extend the war into Iran than have Obama bring the troops home?

I'm sure you could make a substantive case that Clinton's health care plan is better than Obamas. But, if you support universal health care - why would you support McCain?

And so on...

I understand getting invested in the personalities of individual candidates, but having your preference be Clinton, McCain Obama is just incoherent if you're looking at the actual policy positions of who you're voting for.

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 1:40 AM

@Reason: If the 50-year-old and older women who've made up so much of Hillary's support are really willing to let McCain do what it looks like he'll do to the reproductive rights they've spent their lives fighting for, then that's a pretty goddamn sad commentary on something. But I don't think they are. And I feel quite confident that Obama has a better chance of bringing the Clinton supporters into his fold than the other way around, since he's already started talking about it.

Posted by moff | May 7, 2008 1:41 AM

Bill Clinton did not receive near the criticism being tossed on Hillary. Hillary is forced to endure her own abuse and any leftovers from Bill.

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 1:42 AM

Chet

"You actually have to convince people to vote for you. She's failed to do that in the requisite numbers, so far. Obama has beaten her."

Hillary has earned the votes of 16,000,000 voters and has won most of the big-swing states that are crucial to the electoral map.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 1:44 AM

Reason, please change your name. The irony is getting so thick in here I can't find the exit.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 7, 2008 1:45 AM

Ah, Whack O'Mole, a sad shut-in whose one big issue -- alerting Americans to the coming Insurgencia, any time now, he promises -- has been swept aside. It is to laugh. Perhaps he can keep his white-supremacist pals happy for a while, but they're too concerned about the ZOG.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 1:47 AM

This primary has actually made me believe that there are women who would vote for Paris Hilton over Al Gore.

justaguy: EWard has consistently proven to be a parrot for the Clinton's dumbest talking points. Just see the point above. He/she believes that John McCain has passed the ambiguous yet crucial Commander-in-Chief test, which we know is all that matters.

Also, in the hour between EWard's 12:44 post and his/her 1:44 post, Clinton somehow got a million more voters. Hmm.

Posted by JD | May 7, 2008 1:47 AM

"EWard has consistently proven to be a parrot for the Clinton's dumbest talking points."
Clinton praised Obama's supporters in her victory speech and said that she' support him if (read when) he's the nominee. So, nope - dumber than Clinton's talking points.

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 1:54 AM

Man, I thought that event was Thursday night, there's a Lakers game tomorrow night.

Posted by Jimm | May 7, 2008 1:57 AM

Hello,

Neither candidate is going to get the votes needed prior to the convention, no matter what the superdelegates say, since they cant vote until the convention, and will change their minds before that.

Hillary is the candidate that can beat McCain, hands down. Hillary will not quit before the convention because she has not lost, and Obama hasnt won. This is politics, so let it be decided at the convention, that is what conventions are for.

Everybody is doing the math and saying that it is impossible for Hillary to win, but in politics, anything is possible.

I will vote for Hillary in the general election when she gets there. I did not get to vote in my states caucus, Wyoming, because I was not allowed to vote, even though I am a registered Democrat and voted in the last election. Hundreds of Democrats in Wyoming did not get to vote for the same reason. If and its a big if, Obama wins, I will not vote for him, neither will my wife and family. We will vote for McCain, and the polls show, at least half of Hillary's voters will do the same.

A vote for Hillary is a vote to beat McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 2:01 AM

Initially at the start of this democratic primary, I had no favorites. I thought there were many good candidates. Now that the field has come down to two candidates, the only person I can reasonably support is Hillary Clinton.

It's very interesting. Senator Obama had a string of losses with Ohio, Texas, R. I., and Pa. but no one was asking that he step down but now that he wins North Carolina which was expected and happened because the AA voters are backing him overwhelmingly, again Clinton is supposed to step down.

If the Obama supporters think that by calling for Sen. Clinton to step down and insulting her and her supporters as well, is going to cause us to support Obama should he get the nomination, forget it.

Although my family and I are life-long loyal democrats, we ultimately care more about our country than the party. We will not be voting for a candidate who has very little experience and what there is known about his record is hardly "noteworthy." We only have his speeches and campaign slogans. Unfortunately his associates and wife don't seem to be on board with his "messages of hope and unity." Why take that chance? The last time this country took a "chance" we ended up with Geo W.

Moreover, how does the democratic party think they are going to win in the fall if the voters in two very important states like Michigan and Florida are dis-enfranchised or their delegates are seated at the convention in some 50/50 arbitrary split? I can guarantee that this alone could spell "political suicide" for the democratic party come Nov.

As far as I'm concerned this "race" can go to the convention floor. It's happened before. In the old days before there were primaries that's how the candidates were selected. Then whoever emerges as the winner, would have legitimacy (provided of course Mi. and Florida delegates are seated in a "fair" manner.)

Posted by Cathy in Ks. | May 7, 2008 2:04 AM

"You actually have to convince people to vote for you. She's failed to do that in the requisite numbers, so far." She has convinced more people that Obama has, oh, but that's right we don't count Everyone’s vote.

And as for the shallow statement of "Obama has beaten her." Only in his dreams. He has not beaten her, he has purchased more air time. He needs to take vacations, can't find time to debate, needs to eat his waffles ... and this a Commander-in-Chief makes? Only in the minds of the newly registered, “I believe in the dream but don’t yet get politics” following he has assembled. The world laughs at his notion that he can lead. You would think that the man would be embarrassed that he gathered most of the support from the fallen candidates, outspent her by 25 million in purchasing the media and still can't shake her. All he has done is created great racial tension where there was little to none. Now there is a great uniter.

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 2:09 AM

Obama hasn't done anything to go out and piss off the demographic groups in Clinton's coalition (polling showed that most people in PA agreed more with Obama's bitter comment than with Clinton's attack on it). Clinton's people have dismissed his black supporters as irrelevant (and she has also tried to blame black economic woes on Latinos, which is a great way to keep her coalition together against the man nicknamed Juan McCain). She has also attacked the type of white supporters that Obama attracts. This is why she has been getting less support. Clinton would have a lot more fence-building to do than Obama if she got the nomination than he will have to do when he does.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 2:12 AM

You know, all of the Clinton supporters trying to use mean words to make us switch to Clinton just sound sad and desperate without having a coherent argument. They're also making great arguments against voting for Bill Clinton in 1992. No Bill presidency would mean no Hillary Senate seat and no primary run. Basically they disavow her campaign. It's silly.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 2:20 AM

Hillary is our choice in this household and most of my friends are of the same notion.
If we are not voting for her we will move on.
I took a look at McCain's site this evening I have never gone there before when I came on line to check things out I checked mainly blog sites. Then selected the HillaryClinton.com site when I got a new computer and did not have my bookmarks.
I have donated bought a wardrobe,jackets, shirts, hats, misc. and saw that there are some neat things at McCain's site tonight that you may force me to sample if Hillary is not the choice.
You only have to look at the two remaining choices and select best choice. Then that means you do not just vote for them, you man the phones and do everything in your power to assure your new person wins.
Should Hillary leave this election I will be calling and doing everything in my power to assure that a Republican wins the election this fall.
Considering that I have always gone for this party since I was a kid, it will expand my comfort zone and make me a more rounded person.
I noticed that it was the thought in NC that all would back him given time.
The Emperors New Clothes is the best description of this fairy tale.

Posted by Marian | May 7, 2008 2:22 AM

Reason: "She has convinced more people that Obama has, oh, but that's right we don't count Everyone’s vote."

She has not. As of tonight Obama's lead in the popular vote is insurmountable, INCLUDING FL and MI. You need to update your talking points.

Face reality: Clinton no longer has a viable path to the the nomination. Barack Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee for President of the United States. The race is over.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2008 2:22 AM

"A vote for Hillary is a vote to beat McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president."

So, you're voting for Clinton because only she can beat McCain. But if she looses, you're voting for McCain.

There seems to be a slight flaw in your reasoning there...

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 2:25 AM

Where did all the crazy people come from? Did you get linked to by Hillaryis44?

Posted by br | May 7, 2008 2:26 AM

PA and Indiana and 647,000+ voters in NC are truly turned off at the man. I cling to my Religion because of what it does for me, not becasue I am bitter...and I don't own a gun AND I live in PA.

Clinton's people have never dismissed black voters, black voters have dismissed Clinton because they are united on race not issues or experience.

Clinton doesn't need to build fences, she will be busy executing her plans and getting things done. She won't need to learn the ropes, she knows them. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 2:27 AM

Wow, we have a whole new crop of concern trolls tonight. Taylor Marsh sent you?

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president.

Will you start waving a fluffy kitten in the air and threaten to shoot it if you don't get your way?

Face facts: your candidate's campaign dismissed a host of early contests, realised after the fact that those contests ran up the numbers against them, and has acted ever since as if they didn't count.

The choice for November resolved itself into the prospect of re-running Kerry 2004 for a couple of hundred thousand more votes in Ohio, and the prospect of making the GOP play defense like they did in 2006. The long term fortunes of the party, I'd argue, are better staked on a continuation of what succeeded in 2006.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 2:33 AM

has won most of the big-swing states that are crucial to the electoral map.

Which is irrelevant; either Dem candidate will win the same states. That Hilary beat Obama - narrowly - in any of those states is no indication that McCain will do the same. Just tonight we saw more than 25% of the GOP primary race go to candidates who have already dropped out.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 2:35 AM

"there are some neat things at McCain's site tonight that you may force me to sample if Hillary is not the choice."

You say that as if its a threat. If you want to empower McCain to outlaw abortion, stay in Iraq indefinitely and expand the deficit by further cutting the income taxes of the wealth go for it.

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 2:36 AM

Cardenas: "A vote for Hillary is a vote to beat McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president."

You're an idiot. Clinton has no chance to beat McCain, who is running on a (probably fraudulent) record as a war hero. Not to mention that Clinton has no chance to be the nominee, absent lawsuits beyond the convention - which means even if she gets the nomination by such means, McCain wins.

It is now clear that Clinton - AND HER SUPPORTERS - are intent to make Obama lose, no matter if McCain wins. And yet these morons claim to be Democrats?

What's wrong with this picture?

They're not Democrats, they are Republicans who happen to be registered as Democrats.

Anybody who would vote for McCain over a Democrat while being registered as a Democrat is clearly both a moron and a traitor to the United States and to the Democratic party.

These clowns are "Joe Liebermans". They're not Democrats. They're right wing hawks like Lieberman and like Hillary herself. They're the sort of scum who liked it when Bill Clinton became more conservative than the conservative Republicans.

If these people win over Obama (and I've criticized Obama massively since the beginning as being clueless on foreign policy), you can count on years more in Iraq and a war in Iran and probably one in Pakistan as well, and more disaster in Afghanistan.

The problem for the Democratic party right now is that if these morons vote Republican, Obama WILL lose - especially if Bush starts a war in Iran before the election as I am convinced he will do.

Therefore these people are little more than Mafia extortionists, threatening to destroy the Democratic party for their own purposes, even if it damages the country massively as a result.

These are truly some scumbags here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 2:44 AM

Justaguy

"Rudeness is a weak man's imitation of strength." Eric Hoffer

JD

Hillary added over 1,300,000 voters from NC & IN.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 2:48 AM

I like Reason's reasoning.

I can use it to show that my Patriots actually WON the Super Bowl, because the Giants didn't score more points, they just got more rushes and sacks against Brady. How does Eli Manning expect to be a Super Bowl champion when he came in as a wild card? And frankly, the NY Giants aren't even considered the front-runner for the Super Bowl NEXT year.

Overall, they're a poor champion, and I'm glad we can award the trophy to the true champs, the New England Patriots.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 7, 2008 2:51 AM

Where's the "THIS IS GREAT NEWS! FOR HILLARY!" guy?

Second, let's not let Russert explain what he meant, should he decide to backtrack from this comment. After all, he never lets anybody else do it.

Posted by M | May 7, 2008 2:54 AM

hey EWard, did Obama add any votes from NC & IN? Or did people there only vote for Hillary?

Posted by and...? | May 7, 2008 3:00 AM

Eward,

Asking you to explain the coherency of your position is rude?

Do you like McCain over Obama because he has more leadership experience? If so, why don't support him over Clinton? Is it because of his policy positions? They're pretty incompatible with hers.

oh, and

A dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority.

-Eric Hoffer - gotta love that guy

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 3:14 AM

FYI, the sudden influx of new voices with strong pro-Hillary opinions comes from EWard posting this on the official Hillary Clinton blog, http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/05/07/033203

"-Need bloggers on Atlantic's Website-

If anyone has the energy, I could use some help on the Atlantic website. Here is the link:http://www.theatlantic.com/

Please look on the right hand side and you'll see Matthew Yglesias and the question "Now We Know"

Thank you!

by EWard at 5/7/2008 1:00:44 AM "

Posted by jimmosk | May 7, 2008 3:14 AM

It's kind of easy to lose sight of this when you spend so much time reading blogs, but I really don't think it's worth the time to take these Hillary supporters seriously or worry about their threats. They're hardly representative of Clinton's primary coalition --- what they are representative of is the Jonestown cult centered on 5 or 6 ridiculous websites.

Speaking of which, it should be interesting to watch Armando Llorens pivot from ostensibly arguing that Obama is more electable than Clinton --- a kind of tic he'd append to whatever preposterous Clinton agitprops he was trying to run --- to hourly thousand word rants about how white people won't vote for Obama, so he's doomed, doomed!

Similarly, d'ya think the readership of the Clinton cocoon blogs will dissolve over the next few weeks? Couldn't happen to nicer folks.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 7, 2008 3:22 AM

Daniel: Has Crack Tent Democrat not posted an 'Obama's done, he's toast, he's through' up on TalkLeft tonight? I daren't look.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 3:27 AM

Justaguy

I don't trust Obama. There are a couple of reasons. Since Iowa, the pundits have handpicked him as the nominee. This has hurt his candidacy and damaged his credibility among voters that are unfamiliar with him. It appears the election is being fixed. Somehow, we are to believe that everyone will fall in line like robots and vote for him.

In addition, Obama's supporters especially on the web have viciously attacked Hillary. Her voters are labeled as "low information" types or racist voters.

Obama and his team have disrespected us from the beginning. You talk about Progressive values. What message are you sending to her supporters by calling us morons, idiots, or racists?

The biggest mystery about this campaign is the disconnect between Obama's rhetoric and the voice of his followers. It's disgusting! If he is the nominee, we will vote for McCain or an Independent.

Elizabeth Ward

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 3:40 AM

EWard: "In addition, Obama's supporters especially on the web have viciously attacked Hillary. Her voters are labeled as "low information" types or racist voters."

Accurately in the cases represented on this blog, anyway.

"Obama and his team have disrespected us from the beginning. You talk about Progressive values. What message are you sending to her supporters by calling us morons, idiots, or racists?"

That we can read and understand Hillary's words, as well as the words of her supporters?

Now the whining starts...

This is typical of the sort of intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty one gets from this sort. First, they make up facts, disregard the real facts, threaten to take their toys and go home by destroying the Democratic Party at a time when NOT getting a Republican in power is probably the most important thing America has faced in decades - and then when they're called on all this utter shit, they start whining "Gee, you don't respect us for not being intellectually honest! You don't respect Hillary for being a lying, corrupt POS willing to destroy the chance for a Democratic President just for her own purposes!"

Christ on a stick...

Take this shit down the road to the Republican Party where it belongs.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 3:53 AM

Excuse me, I did not realize that a simple statement would be taken as a threat, more of a promise, after all one needs to check things out before testing the water.
Hillary sets a standard, but we are individuals and as such we follow when we find it pleasant. We are not carbon copies, we prefer fair play.
Democrats are not made like icecubes, we are more like tacking jello on the wall.
I voted for JFK and waited to see if he won, wanted to vote for Robert K but he did not make it to the MT primary. Had no desire to vote for the next Kennedy. Found Jesse Jackson interesting when he campaigned in Mt. Voted for Carter and Clinton. Wished they had not put in term limits as it would have been nice to have Bill Clinton still in office can you imagine where our econ would be if he had not had to leave office.
Yes, I think his personal life was right up there with some other presidents, yes JFK also and we knew with Watergate that the Republicans would need to down a Democrat to make up for Nixon's demise.
Printed out Pickles thesis and sent that over to my grandkids school for the history teacher, makes it easier to see why she is finally proud of America. (didn't need that amount of scratch paper)
All in all we are not calling names I just see alot of people who stand up for what they feel is right and do not vote for someone they do not respect.
We do not tell you that you must follow us. We just state that we will not be a portion of the adult population that would rubberstamp Sen Obama.
I do feel sorry for his white grandmother and grandfather.

Posted by Marian | May 7, 2008 4:00 AM

"Low information voter" does not equal "moron". It simply means people who either do not have the time or do not have the interest to explore political issues in depth.

Basically they're the kind of people who think a gas tax holiday is a good idea.

Posted by Neil H | May 7, 2008 4:12 AM

Jeez, Elizabeth --- the only thing that fixed this election were the voters who, you know, gave Obama the lead in delegates. If anything, the pundits refused to call this campaign over for far too long. I really don't know where you're coming from with that.

But yeah, Obama's got a lot of obnoxious followers. I'm pretty sure Hillary does too, though.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 7, 2008 4:13 AM

"Rumsfeld?" he's a man without idealism."

Richard Nixon, 1972

One big difference between Obama and HRC is that she doesn't seem to have a shred of idealism left in her. Maureen Dowd's column tomorrow nails her on just that. As her appearance with O'Reilly demonstrated - Hillary is now that most empty of vessels - the old cynic. Her campaign platform?

1. Nuke Iran for Israel.
2. Fuck hope
3. The nigger's all coked up and probably dealing.

To pretend otherwise is just to be in denial.

Posted by Trevor | May 7, 2008 4:15 AM

"do not vote for someone they do not respect.
We do not tell you that you must follow us. We just state that we will not be a portion of the adult population that would rubberstamp Sen Obama."

This after EWard whines about Obama supporters not respecting Clinton supporters.

What's wrong with this picture?

Apparently Obama supporters are supposed to respect Clinton, but not vice versa.

I'm an anarchist, I really don't want anybody in the White House. But I can clearly see where Clinton - a KNOWN liar, a KNOWN corrupt politician - KNOWN by the historical record - does not measure up. I can also see where Obama does not measure up - in national security and foreign policy, none of the candidates measures up.

Anybody who can't see that Clinton is bad news either is completely ignorant of what Clinton has done and who she is based on known facts of her history, career, and associates, or has an agenda aligned with Clinton - which is to say, is as much a corrupt liar as Clinton is.

And many of the Clinton supporters posting here tonight have demonstrated the latter.

I've never claimed Obama is not corrupt. I simply don't know. I do know that so far nobody has managed to make any significant corruption charges stick, not even in the Rezko case. And the Wright business is utterly irrelevant - especially when Hillary Clinton is a member of a right wing Christian religious cult herself. Neither has anybody made any significant charges that Obama has deliberately lied. The same simply cannot be said of the Clintons. It's impossible.

And anybody who can't see that is either ignorant or corrupt. It's that simple.

I repeat my prediction: Hillary Clinton is going to destroy the Democratic Party's chances for winning the election. She is going to go to the convention, file lawsuits, do whatever it takes to shoot down Obama's chances of beating McCain, whether they are great or small. She is doing this to make sure that either she gets the nomination using Mafia extortion tactics or that she gets a chance to run in 2012, meanwhile saddling a dangerous, deluded Republican nitwit on this country for the next four years.

And anybody supporting that kind of person who would use that kind of tactics has no right to ask to be respected.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 4:21 AM

Again, if that's true about someone begging pro-Hillary types to pleeez respond to this post, that's just sad.

But maybe like the Petey / RSS / Obsessive thing I learned, that's typical.

Posted by El Cid | May 7, 2008 4:23 AM

Popular vote:
16,261,716(Obama) > 15,439,337 (Clinton)

+ Florida:
16,837,930(Obama) > 16,310,323 (Clinton)

Guys, is it really that hard to say who's winning.

Posted by kablamo | May 7, 2008 4:34 AM

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Pretending I'm doing well
My need is such
I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell

THE Platters' song from the mid-1950s could serve as a great campaign song for many a politician. But it's the ideal anthem for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Trevor | May 7, 2008 4:34 AM

Popular vote:
16,261,716(Obama) > 15,439,337 (Clinton)

+ Florida:
16,837,930(Obama) > 16,310,323 (Clinton)

Guys, is it really that hard to say who's winning.

Posted by kablamo | May 7, 2008 4:35 AM

Nominating a known terrorist who has stolen the vote in every caucus is a good enough reason to work to block him from winning the presidency. Stop throwing him at us. Hillary has a large base and they will not vote for this unsavory character. Blame the media for throwing him at the American public. This is not just conjecture. This will happen. Seniors, Latinos, women, et al will NOT vote for this fast talker with two left feet who spent an entire 143 days in the Senate total and very little time in the state legislature. It's more than resentment or hate. Their good sense will not allow it. McCain must be a very happy man now.
And BO's Republicans crossovers will disappear to McCains side and there goes BO's support. All he'll have is a smattering of uneducated women, 90% African Americans, some students, and the sexist elitist Independent men who cannot vote for a woman including deluded gays. These are a very small amount of voters.
The perception that he has huge support is due to the media rant in his favor and his vote fraud with many of his supporters voting many times in every state making it appear he has more support than he does and throwing Hillary caucus votes in the trash (like the 3500 Hillary votes in Guam). If you throw him at us as the nominee for 48 states, it doesn't look good for him at all. He will finally be recognized as the great divider and the reason Dems lost this "would be cake walk". He needs to stop bribing Super Delegates with his $10,000 offering and bow out. He has done enough damage and the world is watching. America is not going to vote for a white hating, terrorist, conniving wannabe politician, who has an unknown agenda with ties to Hamas and Jihad etc. Not going to happen. People are working very hard to stop this. If he didn't "rock" the vote (steal votes) we would all have our nominee. Either John Edwards or Hillary. BO screwed John Edwards in Iowa with stealing the votes...yes stealing..it's all documented and filed. Opinions no longer matter. Facts remain.
Statiscally they are still in a dead heat. Hillary will take WV, KY and Puerto Rico in a landslide. It will all be over in three weeks. If people want a Dem nominee, then they have to begin to think with their heads and not their misguided hearts. Only fools fall in love.

Posted by Lou | May 7, 2008 4:56 AM

Dear Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. or MISS "and...?",

You may have wanted to read a little earlier in the postings BEFORE you made that comment to EWard...He was answering the question as to WHY Hillary Clintons pop vote went from 15,000,000 to 16,000,000..or should I say OVER 16,300,000?????

Alot of you have been asking us 'why we Hillary Clinton SUPPORTERS would rather vote for McCain than BHO'?...or Stinky (which is what his wife, Michelle, says he is in the morning) oops, that was uncalled for...(slap my hand)...

The question at the top of OUR list is AFTER FOLLOWING THIS CAMPAIGN, AS A DEMOCRAT...WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE IS FOR OR AGAINST!!!!! He changes his stance on everything, for example?...let's see....THE WAR!!! First he said he would have the troops out in his 1st 6 months, then it was by the END of 2009 and now, according to his campaign insiders; by the END of his 4 year term???? The Code Pink Group is going to wail on him if he doesn't produce his 1st 'promise', that's a given....Second..At the beginning, he was all for talking to our 'enemies' without restrictions...now he wants restrictions?? Must be because he got too much flack...Some of you say that "SHE' is like Joe Lieb...If that was the case, she would have backed out at the first sign of trouble and moved to the INDY ticket...since you all think she is too 'central' to be a Democrat!!?? Wow, how the tides have turned...I used to love being called a LIBERAL, seriously...Now I'm just embarrassed to be called a Democrat!!!

Respectfully....ONE of the 'crazy' trolls that is, probably, linked to Hillary44!!!!!!!

I wish you all peace cuz we are guna need it.

Posted by AreYouKiddingMe??? | May 7, 2008 4:58 AM

Wow. You're awesome Lou. Can I marry you? I'm so glad someone is willing to speak out against the MSM's invention of math. God knows I wouldn't want counting to get in the way of your facts about how few Obama supporters there are.

PS.
You do know there is no statistics behind counting votes, its an actual number (Mostly, 4 states are playing hide the sausage with their turnout)

Posted by Kablamo | May 7, 2008 5:02 AM

I love the whining from the Clintonistas. Whipped dogs howl loudest.

Posted by jasmine | May 7, 2008 5:04 AM

EWard wrote: "Obama and his team have disrespected us from the beginning. You talk about Progressive values. What message are you sending to her supporters by calling us morons, idiots, or racists?"

Ask your fellow Clinton supporters, particularly the bigoted morons who parrot the 'Obama's a Muslim' canard.

Especially the morons whose criticisms of Obama are 1) he's a Muslim and 2) his pastor.

How else can you describe such people?

Also, you say you don't trust Obama, but your 'reasons' (if they can even be called such) are remarkably weak. How many people do you trust or not trust based on what pundits say?

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 5:05 AM

Marian wrote: "Should Hillary leave this election I will be calling and doing everything in my power to assure that a Republican wins the election this fall."

Well, you're old and just waiting to die. When McCain and his Supreme Court picks outlaw abortion, it's no skin off your nose.

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 5:12 AM

EWard wrote: "I will work for any candidate that is worthy of this office. If Hillary is not the nominee, Senator McCain is more prepared to be President than Obama. That's my duty to elect the most qualified person."

How many coathanger abortion deaths are you prepared to live with on your conscience?

Do you have a conscience? Or are you just another self-absorbed baby boomer?

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 5:15 AM

Oh...Mr. Hack!!!

Why are you getting so upset??? You're a self-proclaimed anarchist!!! Why are you instructing the Hillary Supporters to 'settle' just because you are??? Your post is soooo un-becoming of a true anarchist. If your kind could have a candidate, who would it be? Oh, wait...NONE! (I'd say 'peace', but that would be an oxy-moron)

Posted by AreYouKiddingMe??? | May 7, 2008 5:23 AM

The Republicans know how to win elections. They are wise enough to realize that two candidates polarizing the electorate spells doom for the party. The winner take all system has its virtues.

Obama has the edge in delegates but without counting FL and MI. Somehow these voters are going to fall into line and just vote for your guy in November. Do you think they might be angry at the Party? Or they just don't matter.

Can Obama win without our votes or the blue collar vote? He can't just be President for independents and progressives. The pompous arrogance of your side is amazing. You write as if, we don't exist and somehow he's going to unite us. In your dreams!

Someone quoted Maureen Dowd. She's part of the problem. Who in the heck gave her the power to tell Hillary to drop out? As the voice for Obama, you have done the impossible. The Republicans look heroic compared to the Democrats.

Posted by EWard |