Anyone interested in winning the general better hope and pray Obama pulls this out.

This is an opinion piece. I do not claim any special expertise or inside information. I am merely stating what seems to me to be the situation before us.

And that situation would be this:

Hillary Clinton, if she were to become the nominee, is now damaged goods. Barack Obama, whether intentionally or not, has disabled her, and not in that cool, uplifting, FDR kinda way. Face it, her perceieved strength in the general relies mostly on the idea of "Clinton invincibility." She's tested, she's vetted, she's ready to go on day one. Never lost a national election. Unstoppable. She eats opponents for breakfast, lunch AND dinner.

And yet she can't score a decisive victory against a MINORITY JUNIOR SENATOR.

The myth is dead. And with it a new one is beginning. The fresh upstart who shocked the world. Muhammad Ali in a suit. The force that is taking America by storm. In terms of larger campaign storylines, the Dems would be foolish to turn that away.

"I just did something no Republican ever could. I beat a Clinton," sounds a hell of a lot better than "Wow. That was a tough fight. But we proved that we can squeak out enough victories in big states to get the job done. I'm confident of at least a 10 delegate victory in November."

Now, the reality check is this: While Clinton has already been damaged, Obama still has to score one more big state win for this thing to have an air of legitimacy. If it comes down to superdelegates, there's no way the Democratic Party throws all it's dice on - to reiterate, a MINORITY JUNIOR SENATOR. He needs the to be a giant killer, not a giant incapacitator.

In a media age, it's all about myth. I know the Clinton supporters don't like it, hell I can understand it. But as Barack said on Charlie Rose in 2004, the reason the Democrats have failed to win an election the past 8 years is not a lack of substance, it is the failure to relate their ideas to the larger themes that make up history and the everyday poetry of the American people. IGNORE AT YOUR OWN PERIL. Noone likes a buzz killer and that is exactly what Hillary will be seen as.

You don't have to like him. You don't have to agree with him. But if you're a Democrat and you want to have a chance in November, Obama is now the only way to go.

•  Agreed

  It's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary couldn't win the nomination without back room deals with superdelegates, which would tear the party apart, and seal the deal for McCain.

  08AMA

  by AgentRM on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:34:53 PM PDT

•  As an Obama supporter, I disagree.

  If she were to pull this out, it would just solidify the view that she's a fighter and can never be counted out.

  Having said that, I don't think she'll pull it out.

  by pointsoflight on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM PDT

  •  A fighter against what, though?

    Has she ever faced a candidate like Obama? Staring down a popular/populist upstart is what she needs to "win", but can she really deal with the consequences of such a victory?

    by George Hier on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM PDT

  •  I hear what you are saying, but I am

    beginning to wonder if it might be better for all concerned if Ms Clinton would consider withdrawing before March 4th.

    It would be painful for her and her supporters though, but it might be best in that it would allow some of the healing process to begin. It is going to take a bit to smooth over the negatives on both sides.

    by shigeru on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:13 PM PDT

    •  She is incapable of doing that

      As to the Muhammed Ali comparison?  I think that Tiger Woods is the more apt sports comparison for Barack Obama.  

      Or, just maybe, Jackie Robinson.  Too bad there's not a Robinson biopic movie coming out this year.  It would be an interesting companion piece to the election season.

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:05:11 AM PDT

      •  Yes losing politicians like aging

        athletes generally stay a bit too long.

        Interestingly if Ms Clinton were to quit now, she could do it in a statesmanlike way, get her supporters to support Mr. Obama, ensure a role as an important fixture in the party and guarantee victory in the GE.

        Let's face it she will not be our candidate in November and the sooner she withdraws the better.

        by shigeru on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM PDT

•  never say never

  First, Obama is very likely the Democratic nominee.

  But, if Hillary can somehow legitimately turn her campaign around in the next few weeks (with what would be truly amazing victories, exceeding her NY margins in most of the remaining states) then it would be the most incredible political comeback in ages and she would have super-duper momentum for the general.  

  But that's like a 1 in a 100 shot. And if she tries some crap with seating the MI and FL "delegations" as-is and arm-twisting a  majority of supers, then, yeah,  that's a clusterfuck.

  by penultimate galactic master on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM PDT

•  Thinking of general election strategy.

  I think the best case scenario for HRC is to win the Gore states (incl Fla). And some of them will be mighty close; that's what her negatives are like. I think BHO brings a lot more states into play. And a lot more support and young people actually working for him.

  Of course, I will support Hillary if she wins the nomination, but it is going to be a hard, hard fight for her even against a weak McCain, imo.

  by psycho liberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:42:33 PM PDT

  •  I also think...

    ... it will be hard to elect a Democrat following Hillary than following Obama.  And we really do need Democratic control for more than one Administration to make any headway in reversing the damage done to the Courts.

    by Land of Enchantment on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:07:13 AM PDT

•  Barack can wipe the floor with McCain,

  Hillary I'm not so sure.  Barack -  young, intelligent, vigorous, charismatic candidate with a stunning track record as a come-from-behind (waaayyyy behind) winner.  McCain - old, tired, likes bombings and 100 year wars.   HHmmmmm, let me think about who I'd want in office, the guy with the brains to say no to dumb wars or the guy who thinks our kid's lives are throw away objects in 100 years of war?

  by Aaa T Tudeattack on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:45:27 PM PDT

  •  Obama "let's not fight"

    McCain "I will fight for this country every single day."

    McCain got a lot of applause tonight saying that Hope was a platitude.

    And in exit polls Hillary beat Obama on who would make a better Commander-in-Chief.

    by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:04:38 PM PDT

    •  coz we're afraid of teh t3rr0r

      Oh yeah, THAT line's gonna work.

      How about a candidate who stands up and says "Enough already!  We're not afraid!"  That'll count for a lot more than "foreign policy experience".  And not just among us dirty fucking hippies.  Everyone I know who isn't a dead-ender wingnut is absolutely fucking sick of the War on teh T3rr0r, and they want it OVER.  They don't want to hear who's going to be "tough" or "soft".

      And that includes ALL the people who thought I was some silly naive peacenik back in the Dean days.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:08:07 PM PDT

    •  "Hope is a platitude" has a ready made response

      "John, I don't think you get it. It's not me or my words that's giving these people hope. It's seeing millions of Americans rise up and march together for something new blah blah blah. America is finding hope by looking into themselves."

      by Last Years Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM PDT

      •  Yeah that'll do it. n/t

        by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:12:14 PM PDT

    •  Let's be real here...

      Barack Obama:  "I'm not against all wars, I'm against dumb wars."
      -- Are you suggesting that the Iraq War is a smart war?

      McCain got a golf clap in a room of old white Republicans, who support John McCain for president.  So, you are giving credit to McCain's criticism of Obama's Hope theme based on his reception in a small room of old, white Republicans.  

      Most Qualified Commander-in-Chief:
      Maryland: O - 50%  C - 46%
      Virginia: O - 56%  C - 42%
      DC:       NONE.

      O

      by kilgore2345 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:40:38 PM PDT

    •  "No you can't"

      McCain isn't gonna win on that!

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:09:28 AM PDT

    •  Barack made it plain he

      would fight, pick up a gun and fight, as a patriot in defense of his country.  What he wouldn't do is start a "dumb war" and expect other people's kids to fight in it.

      by Aaa T Tudeattack on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:56:25 AM PDT

•  26% - 29% - 51%

  The margin of victory tonight in Maryland, Virginia and DC, respectively.

  Agreed that tonight may have been the turning point. You can bet the next several weeks before Ohio and Texas will be intensely contested, but I can't see how HRC overcomes the numerical advantages Obama has racked up in pledged delegates, total delegates, or the popular vote overall. He's won 21 states - plus DC - to Clinton's 10.

  Tonight was shocking. These are simply blowouts, and these aren't all small states, or caucus states. This is the campaign, and it looks like she is simply being blown out right now.

  by Pacific NW Mark on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM PDT

•  Yes, well, a lot of Americans are deaf to his

  "poetry", and think that Clinton's experience, intelligence, dedication and fighting spirit are just what they want.

  Let me ask a question for you: if Clinton wins big in OH, TX and PA, will you be calling for Obama to drop out?

  by BoringDem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM PDT

  •  Only if the pledged delegate count is in herfavor

    That goes for either of them.

    by George Hier on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:54:06 PM PDT

  •  Can Hillary match Obama's margins from tonight?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    But, she's the one behind and playing catch-up.... not Obama.  She simply has to have stunning victories in those states to have any chance at all of blunting the Obama momentum, or the theme becomes 'Hillary finished'.  Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have to win big, and doesn't have to win all of them.

    The aura of defeat is starting to weigh down on the Clinton campaign, the money is running out, superdelegates are balking... I really don't see how she can turn this around enough to win the convincing victories that are necessary for her to simply survive in this contest.  It's becoming like trying to hold out your hand to stop a tidal wave.  Can't be done without some kind of divine intervention...

    by John Poet on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:59:24 PM PDT

    •  You're deluding yourself. This race is not over.

      There's a lot of hard fighting left.

      by BoringDem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:00:32 PM PDT

    •  Small states n/t

      by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:05:32 PM PDT

      •  big excuses n/t

        by terra on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:43:50 AM PDT

      •  Small states?

        Massachusetts keeps getting listed as a "big state" that Hillary won.  But now Virginia is a small state?

        And so the goalposts keep being moved around.

        Sigh.

        by Land of Enchantment on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:21:52 AM PDT

  •  I won't call for him to drop out, but...

    I think realistically that to have a chance in November his victory needs the APPEARANCE of legitimacy. And that means winning one of those last big states. He allowed her to spin him into that corner.

    I think she will be nominee if she pulls off the firewall and it doesn't bode well (My instinct is to say it will be a disaster but I WANNA WIN. Think positive, relatively anyway).

    by Last Years Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:03:27 PM PDT

    •  I agree with your analysis. Wins in OH, PA

      and TX would seal the nomination for Clinton, regardless of delegate count. Obama's failure in so many big states would clearly show him to be unviable.

      by BoringDem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:06:39 PM PDT

      •  You're delusional

        Clinton can win all three of those states and still lose the pledged delegate race by well over 100.  Also, PA doesn't happen until mid April so it's not like she will have the opportunity to rack up 3 big victories at once.  She needs to win Wisconsin, or else big victories in Texas and Ohio can, at best, serve to somewhat stem the tide of 10 straight Obama victories.

        by lwisne on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:40:29 PM PDT

    •  Actually, I take that back.

      Him dropping out would be one way to save the party. But I still think it wouldn't play well as an arching storyline. "The boy took mercy on her when he could have challenged."

      by Last Years Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:06:41 PM PDT

    •  How about the legitimacy of winning...

      a solid plurality of pledged delegates?  Seriously - you Clinton people are completely out of touch with reality.  Instead of trying to explain how losing by 100+ pledged delegates = winning, who don't you work to actually win some states and not get completely destroyed over and over again?

      by lwisne on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:43:15 PM PDT

      •  I didn't say I was happy about it

        Look, I'm the writer of the diary. Heh. I'm an Obama supporter. But we have to face the music. When it comes to the democratic establishment, I don't see them giving him the nod unless he wins the big states. Clinton knows this, that's why she's firewalling.

        I ALSO think that him not getting the nomination, if he continues to win everything up to March, will be a DISASTER for the democratic party.

        We have to think straight people.

        by Last Years Man on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:03 AM PDT

        •  You need to do a bit of math

          Obama can lose by 5-10 percent (of delegates) in OH, TX, and PA and still win by well over 100 pledged delegates.  At that point there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to stop him.  Perhaps there is some loss of "legitimacy" in your eyes with losing certain big states, but picking a candidate that lost some bigger states is WAY better than picking one who lost convincingly in the overall vote of the people.

          by lwisne on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:31:54 AM PDT

          •  It's not who I'll pick.

            It's who the insiders will pick. And to have a proper narrative going forward, we need him to knock Clinton out. The party needs him to do it.

            by Last Years Man on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:37:05 AM PDT

  •  Is Hope Change a poem?

    Maybe that's my problem. I am deaf to the poetry.

    by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:05:15 PM PDT

  •  Thats a big if; Trust me, I wont be calling for

    him to drop out, because her chances for big wins in all three states are pretty slim at this point.  In VA and MD, Obama even won the demographics that have been Clinton's strongest support, women and Latinos.  She needs a big win just to be credible; 53-47 just won't gonna cut it.

    by ecostar on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM PDT

  •  A majority hears him though N/T

    by scjmcy2k on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:47:32 PM PDT

  •  Last night, Obama took the lead...

    ... in popular vote.  Even including Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot at all.  Where Hillary gets over 325,181 votes head start right out of the gate, since she did not take her name off the ballot when Obama and Edwards did so.  (And Florida, too, counts in that.)

    He's ahead in elected delegates.  But he's also ahead in total delegates, even with the declared superdelegates factored in.  And listening to Hillary's superdelegate surrogates, they're sounding more and more like they're reading from a script, not speaking from the heart.

    Last night, Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee and Gene Green (both from Texas) displayed that contrast very clearly in a live interview (on MSNBC?).

    This morning?  Howard Wolfson used the word "possible" to describe Hillary's prospects of winning Texas and Ohio.  When Chuck Todd's number crunching says she'll need to get 60% or more of the vote to set the delegate balance back.

    May be that Hillary will have to content herself with only being a First Lady in the corridors of power.  Plus being a Senator.  Takes a certain kind of person to feel that isn't enough for them.

    by Land of Enchantment on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:18:32 AM PDT

•  Nitpicking.

  Hillary Clinton is also a/the junior senator of New York.

  Err, and I guess she's a minority too, if we follow the standard of "historically oppressed group" to hold true for women.

  Like I said, nitpicking. The rest of the diary is spot on.

  by George Hier on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:50:14 PM PDT

  •  Point taken, but...

    Hillary is also the wife of a former president. We can parse all day long about whether Hillary's "35 years of experience" line is valid or not but there's no doubt it plays well with the electorate, and possibly also with party insiders. She's a brand name.

    by Last Years Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM PDT

•  The idea of a Primary is

  to prove you can bring the game. He is proving it. He had a plan, he has executed that plan, he has timed it well, he has led his troops. The only damage the Clintons have are self inflicted wounds. They were planning a coronation while he was planning a campaign.

  by Seattlite on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:58:03 PM PDT

•  excellent analysis

  I think you're catching how the story has changed since Super Tuesday really well.

  by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:04:44 PM PDT

•  Absolutely right

  The superdelegates must face reality.

  It has now become almost impossible for Hillary to take the lead on pledged delegates heading into the convention.  As pointed out on both CNN and NBC, Clinton would have to win approximately 60% of the remaining delegates just to tie Obama among pledged delegates.  That's simply not going to happen.

  Therefore, the Clinton team has one hope for victory and it is deplorable.  They plan to "win" more superdelegates and then seat the currently illegal delegations from Michigan and Florida.  

  Folks, if Hillary Clinton manages to pull off a coup like this, the Democratic Party will implode.

  I firmly believe that the superdelegates must come together (as much as that is possible) to agree that they must support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.  They must also agree that the current Michigan and Florida delegations cannot be seated.

  Even if Hillary could pull off this ludicrous strategy, what would it mean going forward?  The Clinton campaign would have to explain why they did the same thing to Obama that the Bush campaign did to Al Gore.  

  After tonight, the path is clear.  Obama is the only option for Democrats that want to win the presidency in 2008.

  by BO for a United America on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM PDT

•  It's the words themselves

  It's the overall arch of his campaign. The campaign is poetry. Now what that spells when he's in office is another matter.

  by Last Years Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM PDT

  •  Oops. I mean it's NOT the words themselves n/t

    by Last Years Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:12:00 PM PDT

•  We may have

  witnessed tonight the beginning of the end of HRC's campaign. VA, MD and DC didn't just give BO wins, they were blowouts. I never believed a Clinton would be trounced like that. The exit polls showed BO making inroads in groups that had supported HRC. She appears to be writing off Wisconsin, where her lead has evaporated (if the polls are to be believed). A huge shift in the electorate toward BO may be going on in the cheesestate just as it did in the Mid-Atlantic states, and many well spread to TX/OH.

  BO could well head into TX/OH with a 10 state winning streak, highlighted by huge margins of victory, in all of them.

  Tonight's victory speechs by BO and that old, old guy had the feel of a general election campaign, like they both knew who their opponent was going to be.

  To me, it just feels like its over.

  by Norcal Lib on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:18:52 PM PDT

  •  The beginning of the end is not the end

    The end is when they commit to not cheating and keep losing (or "winning" with less than 10% margins)

    Now that we see the beginning of the end, we must bring it to an end as soon as possible to stave off hijinks and disaster in November.

    by Judgment at Nuremberg on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:26:11 PM PDT

  •  Tipping point

    That phrase fits what you describe exactly.

    by Land of Enchantment on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:24:57 AM PDT