which overlays the hierarchy of both political parties, apparently has for years intended the 2008 presidential campaign to be between McCain and Clinton, as various minor hangers-on on the right and left have indicated, and I've mentioned here before on RK.

When Obama came out of nowhere and suddenly turned himself into a viable candidate who might over-turn Hillary's entitlement, the upper level reaction was: What? Do something! First one approach, then another was tried, both from within the Democratic Party and from the Republican party front-runners and their various outliers on talk shows (even reviving the Swift Boat coterie and doing intensive opposition research of Olympic proportions on Obama), in order to get rid of Obama and help the gutsy fighter that is Hillary Clinton to survive.

Now we see the results, and this is just the beginning of the Obama-assault, a sort of Second Front (re-calling World War II). Senator Clinton should not feel particularly pleased, however: once they dispose of Obama, the machine guns will be turned on her because that campaign has already been programmed.

from the beginning of this campaign i have seen the republican establishment, sean hannitys, dick morrises etc. rabidly attack senator clinton. they pretty much left obama alone and are planning to rip into him later. these people hate that clinton is a "gutsy fighter" and will do anything to attack her. that includes giving obama a pass...for now. unfortunately it seems their tactics have worked again all too well with many democrats even going after clinton.

at least insofar as what I see. Some of the Republican hierarchy do indeed think Obama would be easier to beat in the general (he's black, their base of underground bigots would come out of the woodwork to kick what they see as his uppity black ***, their religious right base can be convinced he is Muslim, and so on); but that is rather more of a fall-back position insofar as the upper echelons are concerned. The earlier attacks (over 12 years) on witch-bitch femiNazi Hillary were firmly established in Republican DNA, so of course that was used early on in this lengthy 2008 presidential rigamarole, at first because it was on automatic trigger, and secondly to help Obama indirectly, thus weakening Clinton for the general election (in GOP eyes, anyway).

There are many prongs probing for Democratic weaknesses--- the Repubs run one pennant up the flagpole after another to see how many salutes each receives. That does not invalidate my contention that the Real Establishment from the getgo has expected a McCain-Clinton bloodbath in 2008. Obama's early successes scare The Establishment spitless, and that's across the board.

Ah, isn't it sad when the controllers lose control!

Rasmussen, Gallup, Newsweek, and the LA Times also have McCain either leading or tying Obama or Clinton, just in the last month.

Hillary Clinton's only possible path to the nomination is to ruin Barack Obama as a candidate.

The math has her doomed in terms of walking into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates. She'd have to win over 65% of every vote between now and the convention. It's basically impossible.

Super delegates are not getting behind her as it stands. She's not gained a single super delegate since February 6th, during which time Obama has picked up 47.

The only way that Hillary Clinton could get a majority of delegates at the convention would be if Obama had been so thoroughly swiftboated that he could no longer be seen as viable in the general election.

Clinton knows this.  That is why her campaign is now focused on character assassination. Her only hope is to destroy Obama's chances of winning in the general election such that super delegates will shake their heads and sadly vote for her.

Literally, Hillary Clinton's strategy is now to ruin our obvious nominee's chances in the general. She is sabotaging the election and sabotaging the Democratic party.

This is why Obama is starting to sink in general election match-ups. And obviously these attacks are making Clinton look like scum, so she's sinking as well. Until Hillary Clinton is taken out of this race, this decline will continue. Hillary Clinton is effectively handing the election to John McCain.  Everything was lined up perfectly for a Democratic sweep this November. But she's found a way to ruin it.

Personally, I now see Hillary Clinton effectively in the same light that I see Karl Rove or George W. Bush. I don't think of her as a fellow Democrat whom I sometimes disagree with. She is the enemy. She is sabotaging this party in the mad pursuit of power and she is more of a threat to Democratic party victories than any Republican.

It's time for the rest of the super delegates to show their cards and shut this thing down. We need the unaffiliated senior leadership of the party, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to step in and get this vandal out of our midst.  

to Clinton. and while Clinton has done her share to cause division, it is also the kind of  views you express here of Clinton as the enemy that is rending the party. It is the name calling and allegations that Hillary Clinton, a leader of the party, is intentionally hurting the party, without a shred of evidence, that is also hurting the party.

The idea that somehow that before all the votes have been cast, while neither candidate has yet won enough to claim a majority, that one candidate should step aside for the other, and that by failing to do so she is hurting the party, is wrong, undemocratic and destructive.

It is the assertion that Obama, and only Obama, can be the only legitimate nominee of the party despite the fact that 13 million democrats have voted for Clinton that is driving good democrats away from your candidate.

Please go read what Anonymous Is a Woman has written on this to understand what your position is doing.

With respect, I think that argument adds up to blaming the victim for fighting back. And it's part of Clinton's clear strategy. Throw lots of mud and then when the opposition points out that mud is being thrown, claim that this complaint is it's self mud-throwing and that it means neither is better than the other.

What you end up with is a couple of damaged, muddy candidates, neither of whom will be in particularly good shape to win in the general election.  That's what Clinton wants. 'Look, we're both horrible, mud-slinging people! Obama is no better than me! So you might as well vote for the devil you know.'

Am I wrong about Hillary Clinton's strategy in my initial comment? If there is some other rational path for Clinton to the nomination, I'd love to hear it.  Show me the math or give me a reason why a super majority of super delegates would suddenly break for Clinton over Obama aside from Obama having been so horribly swiftboated that he is seen as non-viable.    

I'm simply stating my opinion that the rhetoric you use is counter-productive.

I'm not sure how you accuse the candidate that I support of swiftboating, of character assassination, or ruining my political party for the sake of her own ambitions, or handing the election to McCain, of sabotage, of being like Karl Rove and of being a vandal, and then say, "Our campaign is about unity. Join us."

It just makes no sense to me.

And I fundamentally disagree with you regarding a route to the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Her rational path is a strong showing in Pennsylvania, and a strong argument to delegates that her dominance in the biggest states means she has the best shot in November.

You can agree with that argument, or not agree with it. But it is a rational argument, and it is not based on swiftboating or character assassination.  

Unfortunately the answer is no, and I believe you know it, and so does Hillary.

Unfortunately Hillary must use an undemocratic tool, superdelegates, to win the nomination.

This is an unfortunate strategy for Hillary as she tries to win the nomination of the Democratic Party.

I don't think it's fair to attack Clinton (or any candidate) purely on the basis of winning through super delegates. The rules are the rules and super delegates really are each allowed to come up with their own criteria for whom they will vote.

Super delegates are undemocratic, yes. But then so are caucuses to a certain extent and certain we (Obama supporters) have benefited heavily from caucuses.

What has me angry at Clinton is the fact that she's obviously going into the convention with so very few pledged delegates that the only way she can win is with a super majority of unpledged delegates, which at this point could only be mustered through the destruction of Barack Obama as a viable candidate.  Which is exactly what she has pursued. It's that deliberate sabotage of our likely nominee that I have a problem with. Not pursuing super delegates per se. Were she running a positive campaign rather than accusing our nominee of being unable to do the job of President, then everything would be fine.

After this whole thing is done, I think that we need to change the super delegate system such that perhaps they only get to vote after the first ballot. If no candidate can get a majority of pledged delegates on the first ballot THEN the super delegates would be able to step in and become part of the process. Meanwhile, we should accept the rules as they are mid-game.  

Next time, of course :P

Caucuses should disappear as well, in the next run :)

Super delegates are very undemocratic since they give to a single person the equivalent of thousands of votes.

I know that the rules allow a superdelegate upset. Yet if it happens, it looks bad. It would look like a bunch of Democratic insiders decided to push their insider candidate.

I already hear people saying that if superdelegates give the win to the person with less pledge delegates, they should just get rid of primaries and let the bosses decided. :)

This 'big state' thing is a canard and I don't think it's a case that could rationally be expected to sway a super majority of super delegates.  Obama actually carried a bunch of big states, but that is beside the point.  The convention will be full of super delegates from all over America. People who are sick and tired of national campaigns that ignore their home states in favor of a 51% campaign that only really fights in Florida and Ohio.

No candidate is going to win over a super majority of these people by saying; "Hey, you're from a state that DOESN'T COUNT. Vote for me because some other people in a more populous state hundreds of miles away supported me in their primary."  

If this really is Hillary Clinton's idea of a path to the nomination, it's absurd. You don't get people's votes by effectively insulting them and their states. This idea that a minority of votes and pledged delegates from large states outweighs a majority of votes and pledged delegates from a variety of states makes absolutely no sense. It is a standard of qualification bordering on the bizarre. Nobody at the convention is going to buy this, aside from those who were already supporting Clinton.

There are a total of 794 super delegates. 317 of them are from states with fewer than 100 pledged delegates (that seems like a rational cut-off for defining small versus large states).  If Clinton walks into the convention with this 'big states are more meaningful' schtick, then that's 477 super delegates who would have just been insulted. It's not a rational path to the nomination.

I realize that you've been with your candidate for a long time and you want to stay in there and support her. Loyalty is a good thing. I respect that. I just think that the material that her campaign is giving supporters to work with has become very, very thin.

and I provided one for Clinton using superdelegates and long-established party rules. It is neither an absurd nor bizarre path.

I am not saying big states count more than little ones in the nominating process, but rather that big states count more than little states in the general election. It is undemocratic, but that is the system our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us.

I think it is perfectly rationale for Clinton to argue that her better performance in these states portends a better performance in these critical states in the general.

Now, you are free to disagree with that argument. But simply labeling it absurd or bizarre is not argument.

Finally, you state that "you don't get people's votes by effectively insulting them," which was the point I was trying to make from the get-go. Calling my candidate a vandal, or Karl Rove, is counter-productive. Suggesting that she is hurting the party merely by remaining in the race before it is decided is insulting.

How about all sides in good faith allow the process to run its course. How about we don't flip out at every criticism. It seems to me both sides have crossed the line, and have stepped back when they have.

"and I provided one for Clinton using superdelegates and long-established party rules. It is neither an absurd nor bizarre path."

It has also never been done before.  Never have the superdelegates overturned the results of the pledged delegate count, which is representative of the primary system itself.  To do so would be catastrophic.  For once, I agree with Pelosi: superdelegates would be wise to confirm, rather than oppose, the will of the people as selected by the Primaries and caucuses.  Polls have overwhelmingly shown that people (57-33% in one poll) want the winner of the pledged delegate race to be the nominee.  To do otherwise is to lose the support of over half of Obama supporters (same poll showed 60% of Obama supporters would NOT support Hillary if she won the nomination in the way you suggest, aznew).  

What you suggest, aznew, would destroy the party, and would be one of the most non-Democratic events in the history of our party.  It would be disastrous.  I certainly would not support Clinton is such an event.  Like I said, in the highly unlikely even she win enough support out of the remaining 10 states to win the nomination on pledged delegates (hell, even if she gets relatively close, as in 20 or less behind Obama), I will support her.  But I, like most other Obama supporters, will not support her if party insider blatantly overturn the will of the people.  The way you suggest for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination is the way to secure her defeat in November.  

"Never have the superdelegates overturned the results of the pledged delegate count, which is representative of the primary system itself."

I would also add, aznew, that this is basically the reason that a lot of Obama supporters are having trouble maintaining the official posture of Democratic comity. Because it was obvious, after Wisconsin and Hawaii, that HRC could not win the nomination without coercing superdelegates. But she refused to concede, which means she essentially guaranteed a protracted nomination process and a nasty convention battle. That was her choice, and she chose to push on, despite the gap in pledged delegates. Her only explanation for this is: I can win the states that matter. Which, as others have pointed out, strikes a lot of people in states like Wisconsin and Virginia as pretty offensive--aside from the obvious myopia in pre-conceding half of the country. So yes, she is playing by the party rules, but since she has to overrule the pledged delegate results in order to get the nomination (which means she has to turn the party establishment against Obama), it still seems to boil down to a self-serving gambit.

Hillary can't make up the delegate count. Mathematically she can't win through pledged delegates.

If this where a tennis match, the score would be 4-2 in a game of best 4 out of 7. Sure, the losing players can play the other game, but the match has already been lost.

Hillary right now is that player who is 4-2 and wants to demand to play the entire match.

For someone who is supposed to face stark realities, Hillary seems to fail to understand that she already lost.

Hillary's only hope is to upset the delegate count voted by people with superdelegates.

Again, she fails to face reality. Hillary will not count with the support of the Democratic base, who will see this as Hillary stealing the election.

If Hillary wishes to finish the process the way Huckabee did, it is fine with all of us, as long as she does it in a graceful manner. However, she is being everything but graceful.

It's the fact that she's sabotaging our nominee that is the problem. Accusing him of being unqualified to be President and either tolerating or requesting these constant racial attacks being used by her proxies. The simple fact of her wanting to keep going and see how strong a second place she could must would be fine if she were doing it gracefully.

is the graceful one. I saw today a video of him defending the character of Obama.

Ironic.

A more apt analogy would be that they are engaged in a best of 7, and the score is 3-2, and you are insisting that Clinton quit.

Also, you say:

Again, she fails to face reality. Hillary will not count with the support of the Democratic base, who will see this as Hillary stealing the election.

This has it exactly backwards. The core of Hillary's support appears to be with virtually the entire traditional Democratic base except for the African American community.

Obama is generating much greater support than is Clinton from new people coming into the party to vote for him -- some independents who are really into him, some young people getting involved for the first time.

Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying. A vote is a vote is a vote. But when you talk about the party's base, they are as much with Clinton as with Obama, if not moreso.

Obama wins more support from voters under 30, which is a traditionally strong demographic for us. And those aren't all or even mostly people getting involved for the first time. I'm 29 and I've voted in every election since I was 18. There are plenty of people like me who are well established as part of the party's base.

Clinton gets a majority of support from older women. Aside from that, Obama usually either shares the rest of the base with Clinton or gets a majority in some categories.

Look at Charlottesville and Albemarle. We're hard-care Democratic party base right here. Lots of low and middle income blacks, lots of retirees, lots of working class rural people in the county and a lot of highly educated people affiliated witht he University. Obama carried this area by what? Something like 65%? It was a blow-out as I recall.

Neither of these candidates has exclusive claim to the support of the Democratic party base. The vast majority of the party base sees either of these candidates as a plausible President, which is why a super delegate coup is so unlikely.

Obama Needs to win 46% of the remaining pledged delegates in upcoming primaries to reach the number needed to secure the nomination.  And based on the delegates he picked up recently in California well as those this weekend, that percentage could be a bit less.

And there are additional opportunities for Obama to pick up additional delegates in other states like Ohio.  In Ohio, for instance, the secretary of state's office told me this afternoon that there are still provisional and overseas ballots that are to be counted.  And Chuck Todd of MSNBC has stated that there are two CD's in Ohio in which delegate allocations could be affected in Obama's favor once all ballots are counted.

However, Clinton's math is much steeper - she needs around 66% and those numbers, I believe are beyond her reach.  In addition, Clinton's campaign is factoring in winning big margins in Florida and Michigan in order to secure the noination, but with the collapse of talks in Florida and Michigan over re-do's, one of the pillars of her strategy has pretty much collapsed.    

and I shall be mute.

Flipper, I trust your take on the numbers. My understanding was that tting enough pledged delegates was beyond either candidate in any plausible scenario.

I also want to address Dan and Hugo briefly. We've been around this oval before, gents, and agree with you guys. If Obama wins the delegate count and the popular vote (including Florida), then the nomination is his.

In the unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibilities, event that Clinton surpasses him in the popular vote, then I'm not sure why the delegate count is a controlling indication of the will of the party.

Party rules, you say? But the rules for awarding delegates are not in all instances democratic in the sense of respecting the will of the majority. So, if democratic choice is the goal, perhaps popular vote is arguably a better indication.

So, my argument is that it is a rational path. I am not arguing in favor of it, I am merely saying that pursuing it should not earn Clinton the enmity it seems to.

I was trying to respond to Jack's post and his strong rhetoric. The alienation of Democratic Party voters is not all the doing of one side.

Let the process play out, and stop saying that Clinton is hurting the party by running. She is not. Calling on her to quit and short-circuiting the process hurts just as much, if not, more, IMHO.

I am for getting rid of the whole delegate system, in the next election cycle. Let the popular vote add up and whoever wins the most votes win the nomination. :)

Unfortunately we have to live with what we have today. This is a delegate race, according to Hillary herself. And Hillary has lost that race, and it seems that you have agreed on that point.

Now let's put our cynical hats on and let's explore the chances of Hillary if she would win the nomination through superdelegates. This is actually my main problem with her current strategy.

First, and most importantly, Hillary would be seen as stealing the nomination. This will turn off the young people joining the process, the independents giving the Democratic Party a chance, and the Republicans. Our chance for a long-term re-alignment would have been wasted.

Second, winning the primary over the delegate count will turn off the Democratic base that has sided with Obama. The main problem is that it will look like Hillary stole the nomination. These people will not participate in the general race, and we should expect it to be another race of small margins. This could be fatal pretty much from the beginning of the campaign.

Third, Hillary has diminished her own character while attacking Obama. She has proven the worst stereotypes about herself.

And this will prove fatal during the general election. Republicans will point how she attacked sweat Obama without mercy, proving how egocentric and power mad she is. And the meme that Hillary is terrible will bring out the conservative base which will make it their mission to stop Hillary getting to the White House.

Combine the activism against Hillary that her candidacy will activate together with how Hillary's campaign will turn off enough Obama supporters, and you have president McCain.

Think the scenario through. Please let me know if I it is not plausible.  

If I had to bet now on who would win, I would bet on Obama. Picking some number out of thin air just to give you an idea of the magnitude of how likely I think it is, I think he has, maybe, an 80% - 85% chance of winning.

Barring some ridiculous Spitzer-like revelation, Clinton cannot catch him in the delegate count. She has an outside chance of catching him in the popular vote, but, of course, there is no real clean way of counting the votes. Should Florida count? How do we deal with Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot? How do we count votes from caucus states, where final vote tallies might not really reflect popular support?

But that all said, if Clinton can't make a reasonable argument by June that she has won the overall popular vote, then the election is over as far as I am concerned. At that point, the party has spoken, and I'm ready to move on. My candidate has lost. Long live my candidate!

If it is a split decision, then the important thing in the fight over superdelegates is for it to be transparent. For example, I had heard about Obama supporters contacting African American SDs and saying, you better support Obama, or you might find yourself in a primary challenge next election.

Now, I think that kind of argument is fine. All I ask is that it be made out in the open.

Similarly, if Bill Clinton wants to call in chits from SDs, I think that is legit. That is a part of politics. All I ask is that it happen out in the open, so we know why any particular SD has made the choice they have made.

I am for getting rid of the whole delegate system, in the next election cycle. Let the popular vote add up and whoever wins the most votes win the nomination. :)

Unfortunately we have to live with what we have today. This is a delegate race, according to Hillary herself. And Hillary has lost that race, and it seems that you have agreed on that point.

Now let's put our cynical hats on and let's explore the chances of Hillary if she would win the nomination through superdelegates. This is actually my main problem with her current strategy.

First, and most importantly, Hillary would be seen as stealing the nomination. This will turn off the young people joining the process, the independents giving the Democratic Party a chance, and the Republicans. Our chance for a long-term re-alignment would have been wasted.

Second, winning the primary over the delegate count will turn off the Democratic base that has sided with Obama. The main problem is that it will look like Hillary stole the nomination. These people will not participate in the general race, and we should expect it to be another race of small margins. This could be fatal pretty much from the beginning of the campaign.

Third, Hillary has diminished her own character while attacking Obama. She has proven the worst stereotypes about herself.

And this will prove fatal during the general election. Republicans will point how she attacked sweat Obama without mercy, proving how egocentric and power mad she is. And the meme that Hillary is terrible will bring out the conservative base which will make it their mission to stop Hillary getting to the White House.

Combine the activism against Hillary that her candidacy will activate together with how Hillary's campaign will turn off enough Obama supporters, and you have president McCain.

Think the scenario through. Please let me know if I it is not plausible.  

Your scenario would work if Clinton still had a chance of being able to win in the states.

At this point Clinton cannot win the pledge delegate race without the superdelegates rescuing her.

If Hillary could still take Obama over with pledged delegates, I would be in favor of keeping the process going.

Unfortunately Hillary can't do this, so her only strategy is to upset the delegate count.  I know that it is within the rules for this to happen, but it looks wrong.

How do you call this 3-2?  I won't call it over, but mathmatically, it is near impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count without sweeping the new few primaries by large numbers.

You have admit that Hillary cannot win the pledged delegate count without divine intervention.  You also have to admit that you are counting on superdelegates to basically overrule the results of the primaries and caucuses.  Can you honestly say that you're okay with that?

your sounding like one of those "underground bigots" that Teddy references above that has it in for the annoited one. While I think people in the media on the right have Obama all wrong, Hillary is proving their longtime criticisms of her a reality as she puts herself above Party knowing that the only way to the nomination now is through some back room brokered deals in Denver. The more things "change" the more they stay the same in terms of the Democratic Party as long as it rises and sets by way of the Clintons, both of them.

will solidify  his lead.
Once he is the candidate the polls will change.

if he is not so weakened or even destroyed by the combined attacks from without and within his own party that he never makes it to the nomination. The psychological effect on ALL concerned of this kind of ramped-up character assassination is worthy of a thesis.

It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats find ever new ways to lose an election.

PS: nor how easily the Republican war machine  reliably creates Pavlovian dog responses from panicky Democrats. (example:See Bush-Cheney remarks about "Democrat" Party helping terrorists every time Congress makes a feeble attempt to rein in Bush's dictatorial warmongering). So they fight dirty and keep dripping away on a particular theme. So what else is new? What I'd like to be new is an effective Dem counter-attack, which, by the way, does not have to be equally dirty... although that's not always a bad idea.

Here we go again, Republican guys: so debasing the entire electoral process that you successfully depress the vote. Guess you want to drill democracy into the ground and drive a stake through its heart.

The reason is that some of the people at the top of party are working for the same people as the Republicans.

I agree- Obama will pull way out in front of McCain once he is the candidate.

Michigan's 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

Florida's existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention-but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

The two states' superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Via  Mark Halperin

- First, the rules and bylaws committee would have to handle it in some fashion.
- Then they'd punt it to the chairs of the credentials committee.
- Then the chairs would kick it to the full committee.
- Then the full committee would recommend it to the full Democratic National Convention.

The rules committee will meet in a couple of weeks.  

MSNBC poll here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23...

It's all about Hillary. She's not a team player. I don't know all the details about Super delegates, and delegates, blah, blah, blah, but if Obama wins more delegates and the popular vote, he'd better win the nomination. If Hillary thinks she so special as to say she should win even if she loses in those two categories--that speaks for itself.

I am still sticking by my predication that there is NO WAY she can win in the general election. We need to get away from the Clintons and build a party with structure, not just personalities such as the Clintons, something the GOP do pretty well. Hillary Clinton is not good for the LONG TERM GROWTH of the Democratic party--because it's all about her. I think most of you know what I mean.