Thank you Lowell, you are far more calm and reasonable than me this morning.

I do have a minor quibble with one statement: John McCain clinched the Republican nomination weeks ago when it became mathematically impossible for any other candidate to win the Republican nomination.  While it's true he did not have the delegate count yet, it was obvious he'd get it as the only choice left.

It makes a different in open primary states like Ohio and Texas (and of course Virginia)...  but Virginia was different in that Republicans crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary were not sure who would win the Republican primary.  The difference a few weeks make is that yesterday, cross-over voters were absolutely sure McCain was the nominee.  There was effectively no penalty for voting for either their favorite Democrat or the Democrat they wanted to fight in November.

Yes, they exist, but I don't believe that they were enough to be significant.

The ranks of independents are growing but for so long people have registered in most states that require registration early on as Rep or Dem and do not change the status of the registration. The crossover vote in Texas/Ohio was significant and if say ony 5% of the listeners of Rush in those states took his ridiculous advice and did crossover that is siginificant and based on reports from call ins alot o folks did just that in texas to support Clinton.

It is clearly demonstrable in the exit polls, in the county by county state reported results, and in the ratio of voters voting in each party.

It is absolutely clear that without the crossover voters Clinton would not have won the popular vote in Texas and she'd have gotten fewer delegates from both Texas and Ohio.

The exit poll data from the CNN source already provided says that self-identified cross-over voters that identified themselves as republicans and Independents voted for Hillary and Obama in equal numbers. In Ohio Obama got 49% of repub votes and 50% of Independents. In Texas Obama got 53% of repubs and 49% of Independents.

Compare that to Virginia, where Obama received 72% of Republican crossover votes and 69% of Independents. In Missouri it was 75% of republicans and 67% of Independents. It is also worth to note that the total number of Republican respondents in the exit poll was 9% for both Texas and Ohio. That was THE highest percentage of crossover of republicans in any state so far.

Huge thanks to Glenn McIntyre who did most of this research on the CNN site and a few others.

You can believe anything you want, but it is absolutely clear that now that McCain is the candidate there is more cross-over voting happening (about twice what happened in Virginia and Missouri) and that those crossover voters are NOT voting for Obama in high numbers like true converts have in the other states, and that means that the extra Clinton votes are likely to evaporate in the general election.

I am just saying we should keep it real and take these votes in stride.  Anyone who things Clinton will win Texas for the Democrats is overly optimistic.

I agree that he had it wrapped up a few weeks ago, but the key here is that last night he gave his victory speech.  They gave him the national spotlight because he officially won last night even though everyone knew it was his.  That spotlight has no purpose any more.

From now until the Republican convention there is nothing of interest going on there.  He and his cronies can flap their arms and scream at the top of their lungs, but the media will be focused on the Democrats and his McMessage will not be heard.

I just heard on C-span that exit polls in Texas and Ohio have Obama being the most likely candidate to beat McCain.  It would be a very tight race between Clinton and McCain.  

over the next 6 weeks.

The delegate math suggests that it is pointless for Clinton to continue.  But she and the people who advise her haven't quite figured that out yet.

Yes, while it is true that despite her victories in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, Hillary will still have a tough time getting the number of delegates to win, THE POINT IS THAT OBAMA WILL ALSO HAVE A TOUGH TIME GETTING THEM AS WELL!  So we may very well have BOTH candidates WITHOUT the number of delegates necessary to win, with Obama in a slight lead.  Hillary would be crazy to drop out.  If Michigan and Florida hold primaries now, or before Denver, then those become legitimate contests that DO NOT violate DNC rules.  If Hillary can hold on to her Super Delegates and win Michigan and Florida she should be our candidate.

I think we're all well aware that either Obama or Clinton will have a tough time reaching 2,025, and also that some sort of "do-over" on MI and FL will most likely be necessary.

The 2025 is half of the remaining delegates after MI and FL are subtracted out.  If we add MI and FL back into the mix, then the magic number is something like 2207.

Ultimately the winner will need some number of superdelegates.   Obama will need fewer, Clinton will need more.

to properly seat FL and MI without tearing the Democratic Party apart.  We need to get that done.

As far as the delegate math is concerned, whether we have a do-over or not doesn't change much.

n/t

But not Florida.  Too many people voted in a state sanctioned primary to be asked to come back.

"I'd like to see them both hold new primaries."

There was not a legitimate campaign in FL.

The people who voted on primary day in FL chose Obama.

If there is a campaign, and the vote is held again, Obama may very well win FL.  He will rack up HUGE margins in the southeastern urban areas...

A re-vote in MI & FL would put the issue to rest, and particularly in MI, bring out about a million people who stayed home that didn't think their vote would count.

When you look at the how Hillary "fought" back with the kitchen sink it's pretty clear what you can expect from her campaign. Innuendo as fact .... set up to create doubt. Muslim garb, Rezko overdrive - Speeches and an empty suit....

Nothing has come out of her campaign suggest that she's an Inspiring Leader.  It's more about her being the candidate of experience .... the reliable product (which is pretty questionable - see Iraq War & NAFTA).  

The Clintonites will keep on with more of the same .... creating doubt, even to the extent that she has said John McCain is more qualified to be President. She actually suggested that McCain was a better choice for President than Obama. That's a sound bite that ought to bite the Dem-Party Girl?? on her ass.

Imagine that .... from the Yes She Will campaign (as if she has the same amount of experience as McCain).  What I know... is that she has the same amount of skeletons in her closet as McCain does .... but the Obama camp hasn't gone there.

I doubt that they will....  I wonder if that's a tactical mistake but that's the essential difference between the two campaigns.  Hillary will do tactically whatever it takes to win ... oh Yes She Will.  Obama strategically is about creating a movement that morphs into a mandate that will mean Yes We Can!!

We're in for the long haul but the message and the pledge count continue to favor Obama .... eleven states by big margins was not a fluke. Go Obama - Keep on trucking...

As much as I wish last night had brought clarity to the Party, it didn't happen.

Frankly, I don't think it is possible to avoid a bruising battle for the next seven weeks. Clinton has found the two negative arguments against Obama that resonate: First, the assertion that he is untested in crisis and therefore risky, and second, the possibility of something shady in his past that might yet come out in his relationship with Rezco in particular, and his career in general.

I'm not saying I buy into either of these. I think Clinton would be a better a leader in a crisis, but I am also comfortable with Obama there. As for Rezco, well, Obama said he showed some bad judgment in some dealings with him, and I suspect that's all it is, not to say that the GOP and the media won't build it up into something else.

So, with these working to her benefit, I don't think she'll stop using them.

The question at this point is really how Obama responds. He claims to be a break from the past, a change from the divisive politics of old. Now is the test. Can he remain positive, or will his campaign revert to negative tactics (albeit via surrogates and off-the-record leaks to media - some of which it has done in small amounts already, incidentally), justifying it by saying it is in self-defense.

The box he is in is that while such tactics would be completely understandable, they are also 180 degrees opposite from what he has been arguing up to this point.

Obama would be shooting himself in the foot if he does so, and the damage will happen right away.

Hillary may win through negative campaigns, but the damage will hurt her chances for the general.

Yet if I had to put money on this, I join you and predict a very negative race in Pennsylvania. :)

Unfair and unsubstantiated negative attacks that are not relevant to the issues of the race, indeed, they would hurt both.

HOWEVER, if "negative" ads are run that are FAIR & LEGITIMATE criticisms, questions raised, etc. then that is a whole other story.  One thing I will give credit to the Clinton camp--the 3 AM ad (although exploiting FEAR once again) was a relevant and fair question to raise.  I for one look forward to Obama answering the question, and strongly so that it dispels that BS real quick.

But for Obama to raise FAIR, RELEVANT, and ISSUE-ORIENTED questions about Clinton, I do NOT think is going to hurt him.

The Rezko bullshit was ridiculous--trying to make something completely normal and even ethical look bad because someone involved in the transaction had done something wrong elsewhere.  Not really fair at all.

However, where Obama can TRULY smack down Clinton in terms of fair and relevant issues to her ability to lead the country is on her ties to corporate America and her judgment in leadership.

He needs to lash out at her on those two issues after answering the 3 AM ad, and he will win PA hands down.

often seems to depend upon whether one is the attacker or the attackee.

Of course any candidate getting attacked doesn't like it, but that hardly means any attack is illegitimate.  There are some VERY good reasons to do it.

As I said, I think the Clinton advisors finally did something very smart for Hillary with the 3 AM ad.  It raises a legitimate (although fear-inducing) concern with a commander-in-chief.

Obama needs to respond to it, and launch a few fair & relevant attacks of his own.

3AM is an ad for McCain. The last thing we needed was Hillary running the Republican campaign.

He has a serious problem with regards to how to respond to her attacks.  If he responds by hitting back, then she gets to wave another flier up and talk about how he's not living up to his speeches.  It goes to his credibility as a candidate who can break with the divisive politics of the past.

If he doesn't, she can talk about how he's not tough enough to be President, which reinforces her meme that he's not experienced enough to get it done.  I think he's in a real bind, and it's going to be tough for him to get out of it.  

Her problem, though, is that by engaging in these attacks on him, she reinforces the negative perceptions of her, and also makes it easier for Republicans to attack either of them in the fall.  

See post above.  He needs to strike back, but do so with attacks that are fair, relevant, and issue-related.

to a Clinton/Obama ticket.
How could she allude to him on the ticket after calling him unqualified?  Mind games...

Obama would have a hard time taking the V-P nod after all the slime HRC is spreading. Last night's results were disappointing from several perspectives. First they prove that the kitchen sink strategy works--so expect a lot more sleaze. And a re-run, if Obama is nominated, by McCain in the fall! Second, I can't help but think there's some of that "Wilder syndrome", i.e. whites voting against Obama because of color. It seems like all the rural areas of both states went heavily Clinton, with Barack only winning the large cities.

hillary won the rural areas because working class people and hispanics are her base. obama won some of the cities because the latte liberals and african-americans are his base. did you ever think that senator clinton's message is more appealing to those people before you called them racist?

Where did you learn your political language? From Rove's Little Scholars Academy? ;)

in 2004, didn't it?  That was actually kind of hysterical, I thought.  Or was it a general election ad against Kerry in Iowa?  I can't remember....

but I really don't think it would benefit him to take her as VP.  Why pick up that baggage if you don't have to?

The only problem is that I'd rather have Obama as Chief and Clinton as the VP.

Way to go Democrats.  Only we could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Instead of having a chance to declare a presumed nominee with a chance to spend time and money defining the Republican opponent, we will continue the nasty infighting.  The longer this goes on, the less hope I have for a victory in November.

Jim Webb

George Barker

Even Andy Hurst far exceeded expectations!

Hillary Clinton is in the exact same delegate hole that she was yesterday. Looking at how the TX caucus delegates seem to be shaking out, she has failed to close the gap by a single delegate.

Obama is literally exactly as far ahead today as he was yesterday.

Last night's results only mean that Hillary Clinton is not going to drop out. But in real terms, she is literally no closer to winning the nomination than she was before.

I think she is a lot closer.  Unfortunately, what she will have to do to win (go negative) will probably cost her the general.  I think what will probably happen is that she will go hard negative to win PA.  If she wins PA, it's hard to see a situation where he is the nominee.  

The thing people have to remember about PA is that it's a closed primary.  That favors her, since Republicans and Independents can't cross over to vote for Obama.  While crossover Republicans have not made that big a difference in the primaries so far, they represented 10% of the Democratic primary electorate in Texas and about the same number in VA.  That could be decisive in PA.  Independants made up about 22% of the contest in OH, most of them going for Obama.  So PA is going to be a really interesting contest, and I think in order for her to win, she's going to have to go pretty negative.  If she does win, and I think it is likely right now that she does, then I think there will be a number of super delegates who will flock to her as the more electable choice.  Unfortunately, that negativity that she uses to win will probably end up costing her the general election, since it will provide a lot of fodder for Republicans to play up her very high negatives.  

If she wins PA, it's hard to see a situation where he is the nominee.

Nope, sorry.  Even if she wins in PA, she might still only get about a +25 delegate lead out of the state, and that is being VERY optimistic, because of the same phenomenon that causes Obama to stay close in states he narrowly loses--his strength in more Democratic urban districts that tend to have more delegates.

Obama is down to something like a +140 delegate lead.  With likely large wins in WY, MS, NC, and possibly even OR, IN, and maybe a narrow win in KY to go, Obama can lose PA and WV and still take an even larger pledged delegate lead to the convention in Denver.  With him pulling even with Clinton in superdelegates now, apparently, he's going to hit the magic number first.

Exactly.

Looking at the numbers this morning, Clinton only closed the gap by 13 delegates at best. Obama might end up picking up a few of those as the Texas caucus numbers get more specific.

Yesterday represented the awarding of fully a third of the remaining delegates at that point. There's less than 600 remaining. If every single day of voting breaks out like yesterday did, with Hillary Clinton getting the kind of edge that she did, she would still be something like 60 or 70 pledged delegates short of a majority going into the convention.  

As for super delegates, Tom Brokaw reported yesterday that Obama's campaign has a list of 50 super delegates who are supporting him but have not publicly declared it yet. Apparently the campaign is waiting to announce them all at once for maximum impact. That will put Obama ahead in the super delegate count.

The only real bummer about last night is that Hillary Clinton won't be giving a concession speech today. We're still going to beat her; it will just cost us more money.

...neither Obama nor Clinton has almost any chance of getting to 2,025 pledged delegates.  That means it comes down to the superdelegates (plus whatever happens with MI and FL), and that isn't just about "math."

I think we have to focus on watching who has the lead in delegates, b/c no one may get to 2025...

See here:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljou...

Who knows?

There are a lot of perceptions of last night going around, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a lot of reality to back it up.  So, in my opinion, the following realities need to be acknowledged:

1. Obama got beat pretty bad last night.
2. It's not mathematically likely that Clinton catches him in the delegate count, but it's not impossible.
3. The superdelegates will have to be the deciding factor.
4. There will be have to be "do-overs" in MI and FL.  
5. John McCain is happy as a clam with the current situation.

In order for Clinton to win, she's going to have to go hard negative in order to turn voters away from him and towards her.  When she hasn't done that, he has won overwhelming victories.  So she has to go hard negative.  This poses two serious problems for her and the Democratic party as a whole.  First, it reinforces every negative thing that many Americans already think about her.  Second, and in my opinion more importantly, it plays right into John McCain's strength.  

Let's face facts here.  If this election is about experience with regards to national security bona fides, John McCain will win.  There is no rational voter who will decide based on the amount of experience or type of experience (speaking specifically of national security/commander in chief issues, not any other type of experience) and conclude that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than John McCain to be president.  If that is all she has, she is done.  More to the point, if Clinton sets it up that she and McCain are the experienced candidates, and then loses the nomination to Obama, she has written an attack ad for McCain to use in the fall.  Either way, the Democrats lose ground and McCain and the Republicans are there to scoop it up.  This is not a good situation for the party, and I am really worried that last night's "win" for Clinton will seriously damage the Dems' chances in the fall.  

Obama's path, however, is not as easy or rosy as his supporters would have people believe.  In order for him to win, he is going to have to get super delegates to believe he's electable, and that's going to be tough to do after last night, when he lost two more big states.  If he loses PA, but is still ahead in the delegate count by roughly the same number when we get through with Puerto Rico, he will then have to convince a majority of super delegates to ignore his losses in the big states and look at the overall bigger picture.  

But it's a nightmare for the party as a whole and for the super delegates especially, since no matter who they choose, it will seem like "stealing" to somebody.  We will have one candidate who won most of the big states, including Ohio (which is a determinative state, whatever any Obama supporters say), and one candidate who has won more delegates, probably will win the popular vote, and will probably raise more money.  Who do they choose?  Whichever side they take will alienate approximately 50% of the party.

If this goes all the way to August, and now it looks like it could, John McCain will have 5 months to bring the Republican Party together, unite them against two squabbling Democrats, and start raising tons of money for the general election campaign.  Many people who would contribute to either Barack or Hillary now will hold back, fearful of throwing money at a loser.  Meanwhile, the Republicans can start raising tons of money towards the general and start defining both Obama and Clinton any way they want.  Clinton and Obama will now have to fight essentially a two front war the rest of the way, against each other and McCain.  They get to August, and then whoever emerges the winner has very little time to unite the party and get ready for November, whereas the Republicans are getting ready today.  This does not bode well for us.  

Just my .02

...and thanks for joining the RK community.  I look forward to more of your writings.  

It's good to be here.  Been lurking for a while, finally decided to get in the mix.  

Sorry, lame joke.

Good analysis, though.  

Interestingly enough, election day will be the 4th, meaning that the 5th should be full of fireworks ....

I think there is an element to the national security bona fides debate you miss.

There are two separate parts to this debate: one is whether the candidate has a level of experience that makes people feel safe.

The other is whether people have faith in the candidate's judgment.

Indeed, the judgment argument is the one Obama uses, and on the single most important foreign policy question of our time, there is no doubt that he has so far demonstrated far superior judgment than anyone else in the race. If I haven't given him credit for this, he deserves it. So does Al Gore, FWIW.

There is one other element to the judgment question, and that is what does each candidate stand for. Obama and Clinton are pretty close here -- get out of Iraq (mostly), open up direct talks with Iran, Syria, et al (though they differ on how to approach these talks), and generally less use of war as an instrument of foreign policy. Polls have shown for a couple of years now that this is where the electorate is as well.

On the experience side, Clinton's experience argument is pretty good, IMHO. Sure, people can cynically dismiss her as having just been a little wifey in the White House if they wish (like that chris Rick line we hashed over a while back), but I think the relevant experience is having been there and starting out, from day one, with the kind of understanding about how it all works and feels that only someone who has actually been there can have. And yes, she does have the direct experience of meeting many world leaders and of having had the chance to size them up, for good or for ill.

So while McCain was a war hero, a graduate of the Naval Academy (though I have it in my mind he was last in his class), and a genuine hero, there is an argument to be made that Clinton brings to the table a relevant, unique experience that he doesn't have.

The experience argument is a tougher one for Obama to make against McCain. Hillary's comments certainly don't help him, but they probably don't hurt him either. Obama can not and should not even try to argue his experience matches up against McCain.

He can and should argue his judgment is better, and that his proposed policies are far superior. That is a winning national security argument.

I think Obama is the superior candidate to face McCain for precisely the reason you stated.  He doesn't have to try and compare resumes, he can simply say that his judgment was better.  She has a much harder time doing that, since she voted for the war, voted against the Levin amendment and voted for Kyl-Lieberman.  In addition, as late as 2006 she stated that US troops may need to be in Iraq for at least 10 more years in order to bring democracy to that country.  So her statement now that she will begin bringing troops home in 60 days rings a bit hollow.

Personally, I think McCain will make people more comfortable that he will defend the country than Clinton will.  The one thing he has going for him (and I think this will be a plus with a lot of people) is that he has been consistent on the war since its inception.  She has not been.  It makes it really hard to draw distinctions.  

I agree with you that Obama can't and shouldn't try to argue experience with McCain.  He hasn't tried to do it with Clinton, though, so I don't see him doing it with McCain.  

Again, this is pure speculation, but in some ways Clinton's changed position on the war could be used as an asset, in the sense that it mirrors the public.

Every coin has two sides. Was she representative of the public in this, or did she merely have her finger in the wind and change her position accordingly? As with so many things involving Clinton, I'll bet one's answer to that question depends almost wholly on one's perspective. (Although I support her, I find her history on the war quite disturbing. I tell myself that no matter how she got to the right position in this thing for moving forward, at least she is here.)

And yes, Obama does have his initial opposition to the war, but I wonder whether that is enough to sustain an argument through November. Clinton already mocks it with "all he has is a speech."

Whether you think Clinton is right or wrong in pursuing this particular argument, McCain most certainly will.

We as a party need to get the F over ourselves and determine that this is simply the process, that we will all be OK if it goes to the convention, and that we will get behind the winner 100% and work our asses off to get that person elected.

Again, I am beginning to think that even though I don't think either one of them wants it, it sure seems like these two may NEED to run together to avoid what you're suggesting, regardless of which one wins.

If that happens, even though I am a huge Obama supporter, I'd almost rather see Clinton-Obama, because I think she'll still win, and we'll be READY TO GO in 2016 with VP Obama ready to clean it up in a national landslide and Democratic supermajorities in the House & Senate.

How's that for reality?  LOL...

I think some sort of agreement is going to have to get brokered to get one to stand down.  If Clinton steps down, I think it's for Senate majority leader.  If Obama steps down, it's probably for the VP spot or chairmanship of some important comittees.  I don't see her taking the VP spot if offered to her, it doesn't seem to fit.

I'm  sorry your comment that if Clinton wins he might be offered chairmanship of "important committees" reminded me of the fact he's already chair of an important sub-committee. And, so far as I know, he has yet to hold a single hearing. I'm unaware of any other Senator, junior of senior, who is a sub-committee chair and has yet to schedule at least one hearing on any subject. Perhaps there might be some obscure sub-committees that rarely have anything of significance to address and therefore never have a need to meet. But for a Pres. candidate who is chair of what I believe to be a relatively important sub-committee to not take time off from campaigning to hold a hearing at all creates the appearance, at least in my little pea-brain of a mind, of fattening up the Job Application resume without saying anything about accomplishments relating to the position.

On a more positive note, I don't think you need to worry about alienating 50% of the party regardless of who is nominated. I've called several hundred people from Clinton campaign HQ, some Clinton and some Obama supporters (plus a few Republicans who don't like McCain and voted for Hillary yesterday), and only about 30 +/- said they would not strongly support, or at least gladly vote for, whichever Dem. is nominated. They weren't all happy with the prospect of having to do that, but they all had a powerful and deep understanding of the vital importance of electing a Dem. in November. Comparing this situation with what we went through in the 2006 primary campaign between Jim Webb and Harris Miller, every single person I spoke with who said they will work for our nominee said they would get on board with the nominee immediately with no reservations, unlike a significant % of Miller supporters (e.g., Thomas Paine, whover he/she might be).

One last point re the delegate count and uncommitted (not just "super delegates"): The "pundits", who lately have been totally wrong more often than they have been correct, keep saying one or the other candidate has "locked in" a certain number of super delegates as if they have some sort of binding legal contract with breach-of-contract penalties. But even the media this morning was reporting that a significant number ("significant" being somewhere between one and ???) of super delegates are already becoming "squishy", which is fairly well defined, meaning they could change their minds at any time depending on how the primary campaign progresses up to and during the Aug. convention. It simply amazes me, in fact, that people who should know better keep saying the all the "uncommitted" delegates, and especially tghe super delegates (i.e., Part Leaders and Elected officials (PLEOs)) are obligated to vote for whichever cnadidate has the most pledged delegates even though neither can have the necessary 2,025 to win the nomination. If the super delegates should only vote according the same as the pledged delegates they would not be "automatic" delegates in the first place, obviously, and robot zombies like some GOP party-line mindless zombies could serve in their places. Dem. Party Leaders are elected for a reason - they are actual leaders who have the intelligence to make decisions for the good of the party and for the entire country; otherwise, lower level party members like me would never have elected them to those positions.

Sorry for the excessively lengthy dissertation. It's tough for me to stop writing (or talking) when I start on such important and exciting matters. it's all your fault because of the wonderfully thought-provoking and diverse comments from our RK community !

He has in fact held hearings, just none on NATO specifically, which technically is not his sub-comittee's jurisdiction.  It could be, and it is a bit odd that he hasn't been at least in on some hearings on NATO, but his comittee has held hearings on other issues, specifically related to trade with the EU.

I agree that the delegate count is not the issue, thus my title above "Perception vs. Reality".  Clinton can still win, although I think that in order for her to do it she will damage herself for the general.  The reality is that the super delegates are going to decide this one way or the other, and they are going to pick who they think is most electable.  If she wins PA, I think it's going to be her.  If he wins it, I think it will be him.  Between now and then there's going to be a lot of campaigning.  I think hers is going to get pretty negative, and I think if she does that it will damage her for the general, for reasons stated above.

Good post, I think the race at this point is fascinating, except for the somewhat dire and long lasting effects on my country.  :)

I disagree with that. It would be nice for the people of those states if that were to happen. But why does that 'have' to happen? It hasn't happened yet and neither state has made serious efforts at organizing 'do overs.'

Probably Hillary Clinton will push against a 'do-over' from behind the scenes, since a do-over would create an opportunity for Obama to win one of those states. She would much rather continue trying to strong arm the DNC rules committee into seating the delegations as currently selected, which would favor her tremendously. I think she is hoping for a last-minute capitulation on the part of the DNC over those delegates right before the convention. It's all about brinksmanship.

As for Obama, why should he push for a 'do-over?' He's ahead in the delegate count and what's left of the race looks pretty good for him. Why take the risk of rocking the boat?

So fundamentally, I don't see where the pressure for a do-over would come from.

 

crucially important states and some way needs to be found to properly seat their delegations at the convention.  There doesn't need to be a full primary "do over," but something needs to be mutually agreed upon by all relevant actors in this.

I think whoever pushes for the most fair way to deal with MI and FL will go a long way towards insuring Democratic wins in those states in November.  The party is going to have to do this, or risk losing in November, which I think we can all agree is a very bad thing.  

After this year, I think the primary system needs some serious work.  

in the new diary at the top of the page...

This may work. It actually may be the in-party best solution for what is coming ahead.

I see two problems to this:

1. Obama is actually winning the delegate count. If he were in Hillary's position, this would be a natural solution. But he is the front runner in number of delegates. By delegate count, this should really be Obama-Clinton

2. How do you break the news to the Obama supporters?

How about an Obama-Clinton instead? If we care about winning the White House, this ticket has a better chance than Clinton-Obama.

I cannot in good conscience vote for any ticket that would include Clinton or McCain in any order.  They both voted for the war.

She is one of the smartest people in politics today, she is brilliant - so I do not buy the "I was snowed by the president's advisors" excuse, not for an instant.

This is corporate greed over human life.  Simple equation.  Simple answer.
No ticket with Clinton or McCain, wether on top or on bottom will get my vote.

All of whom voted for the IWR?

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Kerry and Edwards have both abased themselves to some extent...  was it enough?  I dunno.

Most of the people in your list have not even apologized for making the mistake.

Some of them are even as smart as Hillary and unable to claim that a mistake was made.

Yes, I am calling for drastic change.

I'd have a hard time pulling the lever for Nelson, Reid or Rockefeller but I'd do it.

I don't think I could vote for Joe Lieberman under any circumstance.

Just watch when the camera pans to her during his speech to the joint session of Congress. Totally blissful and transfixed! That's scary!

Hey, wait a minute, if an Obama/Clinton ticket wins, will the Secret Service need to beef up security to protect the new president from...........Bill?  Obviously, this is the reverse strategy employed by Bush, who in their right mind would go after him just to see Darth Vader Chaney step from behind the curtain?  The foregoing commentary is all in jest and not meant to imply or suggest that any form of violence is appropriate (can't be too careful with the new laws!)

First, thank you Lowell. This is an excellent, well thought out essay.  Sometimes disappointment makes us all better, clearer and more focused. Adversity brings out our best and this post certainly proves it.

Now, my thoughts on the primary situation.

My first thought would be a Clinton-Obama ticket because Hillary is smart and capabable, and I see this as her last hurrah. Obama, meanwhile, is young and would be just as viable in four or eight years.  His best years could actually still be ahead of him.

On the other hand - and there is always an other hand - Obama's strongest suit is that he is inspirational and literally ignites hope in people.  But if he has to go on the attack, he would, as many here have pointed out, undercut his message and weaken the charisma that is so appealing.

Hillary, though, already has higher negatives because she is seen as strident.  She would make an excellent attack dog who could run interference on incoming fire from the Republicans in a general election.

And that is exactly the role of a vice presidential candidate in a general election.

Anybody who thinks that if Obama secures the nomination, the attacks on him will go away is living in a dreamland.  They will only get harsher and uglier.  He is going to need a surrogate to fight back.  Hillary could do that well.

In addition, the role of vice president has morphed over the years.  In fact, it was Bill Clinton who gave his vice president, Al Gore, a substantive role in the administration's policymaking and decisions.

While I wouldn't want the Democrats to emulate the Bush-Cheney model, where Dick Cheney had far too big a role, it's undeniable that vice presidents today do more than just attend state funerals.  The public is now used to seeing an engaged vice president who is truly part of the Executive Branch team.

So, with an Obama-Clinton team, we would have an effective combination ready to fight the Republicans in the general election and an effective team in the White House.

We could do worse.

after reading your comment. And I think that it has a greater chance of winning the general than Clinton Obama.

Much better than Clinton-Obama :)

Obama's major selling point is personality and charm.  There's pretty much no way around it: if you want to make a man fight for his base when he's built his campaign around his personality, you have to go with personal attacks.  It's irrationally optimistic to think that the Republicans aren't going to go on the offense against Obama.

Having said that, I don't think Hillary Clinton would relish being anyone's knuckle-dusting surrogate.  She has enough people calling her a bitch already that she could probably do without embracing the role of "attack dog," as you phrase it.  If anything, I think she'd like to try being a brilliantly-wonky broker, someone who tries to build legislative and public consensus around smart solutions to some of the challenges facing America today.

And I think that's the perfect job for her.

No matter what happens during the rest of 2008, in 2009 both Obama and Clinton are going to have to work together to actually get something done.  Regardless of who ends up being the nominee and whether Clinton and Obama have a President/Vice President relationship or a President/Senate Leader relationship or what have you, it's important for everyone to remember that this party will have to work together to address the challenges of the 21st Century when all is said and done.

I totally agree.

Obama lost in three states where two weeks ago he was down 15 points he came within a couple of percentage points after having everything including the kitchen sink thrown at him.  He is in a better position than we was two days ago because 1/3 of the remaining delegates up for grabs were decided yesterday and Hillary did nothing to erase her substantial gap in pledged delegates.  Now is the time for the  party elders to step in.  It is clear that Hillary is going negative.  Hillary is running the exact adds that John McCain will run talking about experience and national security and Democrats are paying for them.  As Bill Richardson said on Sunday if one candidate has a substantial lead coming out of Tues.  That person should be our party's nominee.  It would have been nice to get a victory in TX but the fact remains that in the delegate race which is all that matters it is going to be very close.  That is the reality not spin.

I'm impressed with how rational and grounded everyone is being on this thread.

You are right on the money.

Party elders are equally divided, however, I'm afraid.

I actually think one of these candidates needs to sit down with the other and talk to each other about teaming up once it's clear who's #1 and who's #2.  Do it now, before it gets too gory!

In 1968, the Democratic Party was damn near destroyed at their own convention.  Since then, Democrats have only claimed the White House three times.  I know you'll say that the Supreme Court defeated Gore in 2000 but that loss was probably assured decades earlier by the appointments of winning Republican presidents.

I believe that another debacle like 1968 is threatening just at a time when conditions are ripe for swinging the country into a lengthy period of Democratic ascension.   I don't have an answer, but Democratic leaders and decision-makers need to evaluate, quickly, the lessons of the past and find a non-destructive plan for the very near future.

LBJ knew that signing legislation that ended desegregation was going to cause the Dixiecrats to split with the Party and surrender the South to the Republicans for decades to come.  There's a reason he was the last Democrat to carry Virginia in a Presidential election, and it wasn't the nominating process.

A group of them may step in as a group and try and put an end to this debacle before things really get out of hand.

Everyone was hoping that Obama could put an end to this last night - he didn't do well enough to knock her out of the race, but she didn't make up any ground either.

And posted a similar comment below before I read yours.  This is self destruction.  

And posted a similar comment below before I read yours.  This is self destruction.  

HRC's only avenue for victory in these primaries has been by going negative on Obama.  Thus, to win she's has to drag him down.  But going negative also drags her down somewhat also.  Thus, if she wins its going to be by narrow margins like we saw in Texas 51-48.  Which is not enough to move the delegate count in her favor.  To overcome a ~100 delegate deficit, scenarios have shown that she has to win every pimary left by about 15 points and then get help from superdelegates, which is an unlikely scenario.  Even though she got attention grabbing headlines today, the delegate math didn't change much.  As we get later and later in this contest the playing field begins shrinking.  You have to start biting into the delegate lead sooner rather than later because there simply are not many contests left.  Saturday Wyoming holds caucuses and Tuesday is the Mississippi primary, both favoring Obama.  I think even if she wins Pennsylvania, its going to be close, which won't do her much good delegate wise.  After PA, the next contests are in his neighboring state of Indiana and North Carolina, advantage Obama.  I just don't see where her end game is after PA assuming things do go her way narrowly.  Plus, we see the reports that she's in debt, never a good sign.  I think we've gotten to the stage that is like the last minute of a basketball game where she's behind 80-70.  She has to foul him, hope he misses all of his free throws, and hope she hits about 4 three pointers in a row, which is successful at best about 5% of the time.

P.S. NBC news was reporting lsast night that Obama's camp has received the support from 50 previously uncommitted superdelegates and is in the process of rolling out those committments.  If this is true, its a big development.  We'll see.  

this a subjugation of a black to a white?  Just a passing thought.  Otherwise, although I would prefer the opposite, it would be a great ticket.

The Clinton are still liked in the African American community...I hope :). And most would think of it as being one of those deals where Obama is younger so he still has another chance to run later.

My problem with Clinton-Obama is that I think that it is harder to win in November.

There is a lot waiting to blow up in this process. I'm not sure a lot of people here really understand that. I will write a post on it this weekend. Bill's alienation of the black community has not just put black people in a snit. Its much much more than that.

The joint ticket is supposed to fix that before it blows up. :)

Regardless of our position on Hillary or Obama, we all understand that we must have a president in the White House in 09.

Our country is going into to face a lot of challenges, and we cannot afford to have McBush having a 3rd term.

To me the stronger ticket is Obama-Clinton, but Clinton is going to disagree with that.

Maybe the wise party leadership can get together before Pennsylvania and work out some deal that can make us win the White House. :)

But chances are that this is just wishful thinking. It is most likely going to go to the convention.

It is in the hands of our party leadership now :)

is the loss of TWO encumbant democratic senators.

if they (and their partisans) let bad-blood come between them after a nominee is chosen.

  We have a lot to learn from the example set by Huckabee and McCain after McCain finally won.  It was pure class and unity.  

   I would hope that when Clinton or Obama wins that they would offer the VP slot to the other.  Then if the offer  is accepted (or denied), it should be done graciously and with a pledge (followed by action) to fight like hell for the nominee.  
    Unity is the only way to secure Democratic victory in November.  Whether it is a unified ticket or not, I should hope that both people (and their partisans) will rally to the side of the nominee and openly and enthusiastically campaign for the democratic ticket.  Anything else will assure a McCain presidency.

By the way, I am a partisan for neither Obama, nor Clinton.  I have no horse in this race, nor do I have the strong feeling of a partisan.  Therefore I do not sny ogf the ugly animosity that has shown itself so frequently in this race.  

should have read:
Therefore, I do not have any of the ugly animosity that has shown itself so frequently in this race.  

I receive emails from both campaigns.  After the TX debate I received an email from Bill Clinton asking for money to make sure that everybody in the upcoming states saw the moment where Hillary said she was honored to be running with Obama.  The raised tons of money from Democrats and then spent it making multiple attack ads against another democrat.  A donation to HRC at this point is just a donation to John McCain. Bill asked for money to show a positive uniting ad and then used the money to tear the party apart.  It is time for the super delegates to act super and end this before it gets out of control.  Below is the deceiving email from Bill.

Dear ,

Thursday night in the debate, in one remarkable moment, we saw the kind of president Hillary is going to be -- the strong, compassionate, and brilliant woman who will make us proud as president.

Everyone in the upcoming primary states of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont needs to see that moment. The campaign has put together a 60-second ad with the video, but we cannot run it without your immediate financial support. We need to raise $1.3 million in the next 24 hours to put this ad on the air.

Watch the ad and make a contribution to help us get it on the air.

We're just 10 days away from a monumental day of voting, one that will decide the outcome of this remarkable contest between two history-making campaigns. The Obama campaign realizes the stakes and is putting it all on the line with a massive advertising campaign.

We have to give Hillary the resources she needs to make this a fair fight -- including running the ad based on her amazing moment from Thursday night's debate. We need to raise $1.3 million to get this ad on the air and to match the Obama campaign's ad spending in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont. We have to reach that goal in the next 24 hours.

Watch our new ad and contribute to help us get it on the air in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

With your extraordinary help she will win. And knowing that you are there for her now, as you have been throughout this race, means more than you can possibly imagine.

We can do this together. Let's keep working.

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton  

There has been talk in the press the last week referencing a "do over" in Florida and Michigan.  Florida and Michigan were both stripped of their delegates by the DNC due to each of thes states moving up their primary date in January.  As a result, all candidates in MI actually removed their names from the ballot in Michigan.  

I am no lawyer but it appers to me that there is a constitutional issue here as well as voting rights act considerations.

What impact does a "do over" have on the Voting Rights Act?  Would a "do over" have to be subjected to approval by the justice department for approval?

How does a "do over" NOT violate the one-man one-vote principal?  Regardless of the political impact of the decision to strip delegates from Florida and Michigan, if  a "do-over" is allowed in each state, their citizens are given a second chance to vote in a primary to determine our nominee.  As a primary voter, where is my "equal protection" guaranteed by the equal protection clause in the Constitution?

What is the legal rationale of giving primary voters in Florida and Michigan two votes v. one vote for the rest of us?

Any lawyers out ther want to take a stab at this?

The parties set the rules for their own nomination process, and they aren't subject to the same rules and protections as a Federal general election.  That's why, for example, the VA GOP  was able to decide to select Gilmore as its candidate by convention, instead of holding an actual primary.

Of course we would have liked to have him pull off the miracle of Texas and Ohio, but Clinton was always expected to take those states. He fared far better in Texas than expected.  The dems will not win with Hillary on the ticket.  

That's the delegate distribution from yesterday's primary.  So I suggest pulling your Update #2. I do agree that this contest is a waste of the dems money. We need to be concentrating on the general election.  Clinton needs to concede.

would be foolish to concede.  Both have very good chances of getting the nomination.  

That comment seems especially misplaced given yesterdays primaries, where Clinton won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of 4 contests.

Please explain your math that shows how she gets a sufficient number of delegates.

This is what it comes down to.

and pledged delegates don't matter?

it depends on how Superdelegates vote and what they consider in that process.  Pledged delegates matter in their composition of the total, but they are by mathematical certainty not going to be the deciding factor.  I'm sure at this point it will be down to the convention and multiple ballots will be required.  As far as the popular vote goes, it did matter.  They determined the allocation of pledged delegates for the most part.

I didn't come up with the messed up system.  Send your complaints to Howard Dean and the DNC.  They front loaded all these primaries so it will be all wrapped up by Super Tuesday in February.  Well, that blew up in their faces because unlike the Republicans our primary process allows proportional representation of all the disparate views of our party members.  And we also want to give weight to our party officials (i.e. Superdelegates) to allow them to prevent the masses from making potentially unwise decisions.  They will probably rethink this for future elections, but I doubt it will be any better than this mess.

Since Afghanistan is a high profile issue, the full committee had several hearings in the last year.  In addition Sen. Kerry is the chair of the subcommittee that has oversight of Afghanistan.  Obama's subcommittee has jurisdiction over Europe.  European nations contriubte to NATO, NATO runs ISAF in Afghanistan, etc.  So its only indirectly related.  

This is an arcane inside baseball slap, because holding subcommittee hearings on something the full committee was handling is duplication of effort.  If he held duplicative hearings, he'd be attacked for wasting government resources on something that's aready been covered.  The SFRC has not been as active in the last year anyway because its chairman Sen. Biden was out running for presidet himself!  And, Hillary is missing Senate Armed Services Committee hearings as she campaigns.  If she's going to go down this parth, he can easily count up the % of SASC hearings she's missed.  This is a pretty weak attack.  More hearings in DC won't win the war.

In looking into this issue as well, I noticed that the main Armed Service Committee handled NATO expansion in the late 1990s -- so the implication that the subcommittee on European Affairs has exclusive jurisdiction over NATO is simply not true.

Of course, I don't think the Clintons have ever had much of a conscience about trying to fool people into believing that up is down and down is up.

At this stage regardless of who wins the nomination there is going to be bad blood among core supporters.  Most will get over it.  Some will not.

If it was Clinton VP that would be a tough one.  Probably better without Clinton dysfunction near the White House.  If the move made a difference with core support within the party, it's a trade-off that you'd have to look at.  I don't get the sense though that either of the Clintons played team sports when they were kids.

As far as Obama as VP -- his independent and cross-over support will NOT follow him on a joint ticket as VP, so I don't see the value here.  I also think he can do a lot more for the country as a Senator -- or perhaps even a Governor -- than he could as the VP in a Clinton White House.

Someone like Strickland or Rendell would be a more natural choice for Clinton.

I am horrified and weary at the prospect of an additional three months or longer of this nomination battle.  Howard Dean needs to step up to the plate and figure out how to end this insanity in my view.  While the Republicans start their galas and fundraisers in preparation for their lovefest (convention) in August, we will continue draining precious resources from both campaigns which could be used to fight the good fight in November.  I have supported Obama, but frankly this morning I almost don't care who gets the nomination so long as this is over.  What a waste of time, resources and energy.  Flip a coin.  The core platforms of these campaigns don't differ that much.  Get an agreement for both camps to let the Congressional Democratic Caucuses arbitrate the matter rather than carrying on this fight which will weaken both candidates in the fall....  Or think of a better solution, Mr. Dean.  But end this.   If this suicidal battle continues, and McCain prevails in the fall, the players in the drama and The Democratic Party will have no one to blame but themselves.  Absolutely NO ONE!!

Thrilled that this contest is continuing.  This is more and more free news for both Obama and Clinton.  It means that voters in PA and even NC may have a say.  It is wonderful.

The only way it will hurt is if either candidate has a Macaca Moment, and they are both too shrewd and to decent to really get caught like that... so enjoy the free press and attention time.

McCain can basically get the news only once between now and the convention and that is if/when he selects a running mate - until then the press will be ignoring him unless our candidates bring him into the debate.  That is great news.

Remember last Fall with McCain trip to Iraq that surprised everyone including those that were running against for the nomination. McCain has plenty of time now to stay relevent by focusing on his strengths like national security. He could take international trips meeting with leaders from around the world and most importantly NATO to address growing concerns over Eastern Europe. He could also take the lead of the Obama campaign and visit with Canada over the NAFTA issues to help his limited economic popularity which would help him in the general in places like OH and Michigan. He will have the time to focus on the POLICY issues facing the nation over the CAMPAIGN issues facing someone running for office until he has an opponent. The problem with the Dems is both Obama/Clinton will now try to both battle McCain in attempt to prove they can defeat him over defeating the other opponent before them in their own process.

The issue is not whether McCain will somehow drift off to irrelevence but whether the media will cover the things he is doing like potentially meeting like Busch did with the Urban League which could be full of swing voters should Obama be defeated at the convention by Clinton.

You give him (McCain) and his handlers more credit than I do (grin).

...for what it's worth.

1. Think about the unthinkable: a contested Democratic convention in Denver, with the identity of the Democratic presidential nominee unknown until just before Labor Day. That's the impact of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) remarkable performance Tuesday that broke her long losing streak against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): a big win in Ohio where she was supposed to win narrowly, if at all, and unexpected wins in Texas and Rhode Island.

  2. A group of prominent Democrats was being formed secretly to go to Clinton to ask her to bow out for the sake of party solidarity. Now, neither candidate, counting their current super-delegates and potential unpledged delegates, can win a majority of delegates even after the Pennsylvania primary April 22. It is hard to imagine either bowing out. That raises the possibility of carnage in Denver with the super-delegates and the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations in play.

from Novak is not entirely accurate.

In most polls before election day Clinton had large leads in Rhode Island.  Anyone who understands the states demographics had to figure that it leaned in the Clinton column -- just as Vermont was prime territory for an Obama pick-up.

Texas and Ohio were a similar story.  In most polls Clinton enjoyed leads in the state by as much as 20% before mid-February.  Obama was able to close the gap to 10% when the dust finally settled.  Not great, not terrible.

Texas ended up being a 3% victory for Clinton in the popular vote -- she lost the caucuses by about 12% which are a measure of level of commitment, enthusiasm, and organization.

This past contest strikes me as being a lot like Feb. 5th with Clinton winning the larger states, but Obama holding his own in pledged delegates.  I think Clinton wins the spin war in this cycle because she was able to halt momentum from a strong Obama winning streak.  In real terms though in terms of the popular vote Obama is still in a stronger position than he was before Feb. 5th both in terms of the popular vote and the delegates.

The two contests before Pennsylvania tilt in Obama's direction.  

He has a head start in terms of organization and advertising in Wyoming and Mississippi.  In Wyoming the caucus system should benefit him -- plus I think that Republican interference is less likely to take place under the caucus system format.

Under normal circumstances Mississippi would be a prime Obama pick-up.  The one thing that worries me I think it's a safe bet that some Republican voters will try to interfere with the Democratic primary now that the GOP contest is all but decided (it's an open primary).  I think Obama probably still wins Mississippi but in all likelihood he doesn't pick up the kind of margins he would under more normal circumstances.

Finally we have Pennsylvania -- a closed primary -- although the registration on this contest is open until March 22nd.  If the Obama campaign isn't already doing so, it needs to work it's tail off to get its voters registered in advance of the primary.  In the end I think Clinton probably wins the state by 6 to 8% points -- it should be closer than Ohio, but the state's demographics still favor Clinton.  If Obama can pull out a miracle in PA, he can effectively end the nomination race.  Otherwise this one is likely going to the convention.

Could you imagine if John Edwards was still in this thing. What if any power would he have come the convention if he returns to the fray at least from a public standpoint.

I took some time to review my map where I marked who back in December I though would win each state and have to say that who in the world is surprised by the OH, TX results? Even back then I had here winning CA, OH, TX and PA (I did not and am proud to say have her winning VA-thank god) Fact is she SHOULD have won these states so it was not surprising she did if you take states on an individual self serving way and do not buy in to the national theme of the "Momentum" view. If places like VA, SC, GA etc all voted yesterday as well Obama would have still taken those as he did before.Clinton should have won OH and TX.

My concern is the fact that Clinton now wants to go back and change the game and seat FL and Michigan whioch is convenient given the fact it was her camp who lobbied the DNC to create this mess in the first place where she magically was the only person on the ballot. Her speeches now are referencing victories in FL and Michigan--imagine that. This who thing concerning these two states shows the "judgement" you get with Clinton's camp...they now want peoples votes to count or matter as part of the democratic process now in March 2008 but back in 2007 whenh they were making these deals about campaigning and delegates it was fine to remove those voters from the process. This whole agreement in my view was about as unAmerican as it gets and shameful and the DNC in the future should be held accountable for this nonesense and it points to the powers of insiders over the average citizen. They took it upon themselves to determine that a vote in FL did not matter as  much as a vote in Iowa, Virginia or California. Now you have the Clintons claiming a victory in FL where there was not even a competition and you have Bill Clinton claiming that Hillary never campaigned there so she abided by the ground rules of the agreement. Does it not matter that the agreement itself is absurd and to my knowledge there are no delegates from FL as the DNC did not acknowledge them and if that is not crazy enough I wonder who exactly will be paying for these re-primaries if it comes to that as each has already payed for its Primary once. In the midst of this economic turn is it fair to say to those States they have to pay for the Primary again with tax dollars b/c the DNC is made up of a bunch of baffoons.

Unfortunately, HRC's momentum arguement ignores the fact that you keep score the whole game.  After all, football games are not decided on who wins the 4th quarter, its who has the most cumulative points.  Under the momentum arguement, Iraq would be in good shape since the surge has cut down on violence lately.

The democrats will NOT win with Hillary anywhere on the ticket!

Hillary mobilizes the opposition like no other atom of polarity in the universe. I mean people (lets just say independents - particularly men) get vocal about their opposition to her .... and Bill Clinton.

Me ... I'm just tired of seeing James Carvelle always hanging around.

Chris Matthews quoted a California Democrat philosopher  last night on MSNBC ... I've forgotten the name but not the point:

The Democratic Party is made up of two different constituent groups ... the better educated solid (financially) middle class folks who are idealistic and looking to the future ...  and then there are the rank file types, more blue collar type folks who are really are getting hurt financially these days and they need help now. As you go around the country ... as these primaries are demonstrating the candidates are running into this fundamental division within the party. And in essence this contest has become a struggle within the Party on defining what it's future will be.

I thought is was one of the few intelligent / insightful things Matthews has said .... probably ever. But of course he was sighting someone else's analysis.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national-security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former senator Sam Nunn or retired general Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

Hillary's New Math Problem
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119...