Okay, this contest is over

Between the debate and the new polls in OH and PA, it doesn't even matter if Obama loses RI.  This is over.  

I think the debate and the endorsements yesterday clinched it.

Now, Clinton may never see the handwriting on the wall, but I suspect someone over in her camp (or multiple someones) will get her out before she gets really ridiculous.

Or not, in which case she squanders her entire legacy.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to campaign for Obama and raise money, etc.  Every voter we convince is steeled support in the general against McCain.  Every mistruth we smack down is a tired cliche in the general.

But I'm breathing easier.

Even my wife, who is notoriously apolitical, has said that we need to do more to support Obama after watching his performance last night.  This isn't worry about him losing, quite the opposite.  It's being SO impressive that he demands support with his presence and his potential.

Yes, the media may try to claim that RI is the beginning of the Comeback Kid, but not all of them.  Keith Olbermann will openly mock her claims on national TV.  I'd bet money on it.

But, even without OH wrapped up yet (and YES WE CAN if we work for it), I think this has really skated to a stop.  Republicans may waste a lot of money, but they don't waste venom.  They are going full hog on Obama.  They don't think Clinton can win.  And that's as good a marker as you're likely to get prior to Clinton leaving.

As for Clinton NOT leaving, given the ties between Mark Penn and top strategists in the McCain camp, through Burston-Marsteller PR, and given the way Penn is steering Clinton ... I think HRC is being used to attack Obama so McCain can keep his hands clean.  It makes me feel horrible for her, but not as horrible as I feel every day she prolongs this contest.

The final numbers aren't in by a long shot, but the contest is over.  For her to resurrect it from the dead, as MSNBC pointed out tonight, would be to court a disastrous Obama-supporter backlash against the Democratic Party.

•  Maybe there are still more surprises?

  Anyone see this on Drudge:

  NYT: MCCAIN'S BIRTHPLACE IN CANAL ZONE RAISES ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS...

  What's that about?

  by hollywood politcaljunkie on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:23:48 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely nothing

    McCain was born to U.S. citizens, and thus under the law of jus sanguinis he is a natural born citizen.  Drudge is just being himself.

    by DH from MD on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:27:28 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      by hollywood politcaljunkie on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:31:49 PM PDT

    •  The Canal Zone was part of the USA until 1979

      He was born of American parents on American soil. He would be, however, the first President not born in one of the United States since Andrew Jackson.

      Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory, but nobody had a problem with that.

      by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:35:21 PM PDT

  •  dh is correct

    drudge is a moran...

    Article. II. - The Executive Branch Note
    Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    ...
    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    by ratador on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:32:34 PM PDT

•  You're not REALLY worried about Rhode Island?

  Remember Vermont will get called for Obama at the exact same moment so...

  by JeffLieber on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:24:09 PM PDT

  •  Not quite

    Vermont will be called at 7 p.m. when polls close, but Rhode Island polls stay open for two hours. It'll be the last state to close. I'd bet that Ohio and Texas are called after RI, though. (RI is very Catholic and more like eastern CT and southern Mass than western CT. I expect a 10-15 point Clinton win.)

    by daveweigel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:30:29 PM PDT

    •  But she will only win 11-10 in delegates

      CD 1 gets 6 delegates.  That will be a 3-3 split because she won't win by 17 points (58.4-41.6).

      CD 2 gets 7 delegates.  That will be a 4-3 split because she will not win by 28+ points (64.3-35.7).

      So the 13 CD level delegates will go 7-6.

      Statewide there are 8 delegates.  To get a 5-3 split she needs more than 56.25%.  So she needs a win statewide bigger than 12.5% to win the state 12-9 as opposed to 11-10.

      I tend to think the days of Obama getting beaten by double digits in any state by Clinton are done.

      by PocketNines on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:48:15 PM PDT

      •  Whereas in Vermont, he gains 5 delegates minimum.

        There is only one CD and it gets 10 delegates.  He needs 65% + 1 vote for a 7-3 split there, and he will coast to that.  Vermont is blowoutsville.

        To get a 4-1 split in the 5 remaining votes he needs a 70% + 1 vote.

        11-4 is very likely.  10-5 is the floor.

        by PocketNines on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:50:50 PM PDT

        •  Spiffy! n/t

          by Fonsia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:31:30 PM PDT

        •  I love how fucking smart people are here.

          Thank you.

          by JeffLieber on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:35:57 PM PDT

•  I don't feel bad for her now

  she should have fired Penn a long long time ago.  And she should have the guts to tell Penn to fuck himself rather than ruin her reputation.

  She's doing neither, so she is complicit.

  by IhateBush on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:25:47 PM PDT

  •  Guts is the operative word

    If most of the Clinton Era Democrats had guts, we'd have the American know-how by now to resurrect FDR along with all his best programs.

    It'd be a whole different ball game, if the Clintons and their allies had guts.

    by Ptolemy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:29:31 PM PDT

  •  She isn't just complicit

    She's doing this because she wants to and agrees with the strategy.

    Don't blame Penn.  
    Or at the very least, don't blame Penn for what she and Bill have done.

    by HomeBrew on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:20:47 PM PDT

    •  Not quite

      Penn is ready to take the oppo research and give it to the RNC once Clinton is out.

      by IhateBush on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:36:23 PM PDT

      •  I don't know that much about this

        Is that just speculation?  Or something he said?

        It seems to me that he would be burning his bridges behind him if he did.  Not a very smart long term career move.

        by HomeBrew on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:12:11 AM PDT

•  I got to say I don't believe this part

  I suspect someone over in her camp (or multiple someones) will get her out before she gets really ridiculous.

  is correct...I think it is the people in her camp who have the most to lose. These are people that make money on running/advising campaigns. In the past, you didn't have to win to keep getting those paychecks, but I've got a hunch that this election is a bit different.

  She is going to have to figure it out for herself. It doesn't sound like Bill has figured it out, so perhaps Chelsea can give her a call...

  by decembersue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM PDT

  •  Will get her out before she

    becomes 'too ridiculous'??

    Too late for that.

    by pvlb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:13:27 PM PDT

•  Nonsense

  This has been over since super Tuesday and everyone knows it.  BO will have more delegates and even if HRC wins two of TX, OH, and PA it will be so close that Obama will still be ahead and HRC will withdraw.  Come on.

  The real issue is why would HRC supporters vote for BO when he puts the word of Drudge over Hillary.  For me that was the last draw.  I will vote for every dem on Nov 4th bult leave the presidency blank.

  david

  by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM PDT

  •  Hey you!

    I will vote for every dem on Nov 4th bult leave the presidency blank.

    Yeah, you!  Up on that horse!  Hi!  Want to come down?  No?  Okay!  Well, bye!

    by LiberalVirginian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM PDT

    •  ""

      This cant be me i am afraid of horses.  "Well, Bye".  As a rule i dont let people push me around and even thro you say bye i think i will stay.  But nice try.  But that is some pretty low quality snark and pretty weak.  i think you could do better but maybe that is the best you got.  Maybe you could use shorter letters and three word sentences.  Those are easier.

      david

      by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:02:44 PM PDT

      •  Well then, commence repartee...

        ...I am a huge Hillary Clinton supporter, but threats to not vote for the frackin' Democratic nominee deserves ridicule at best, scorn at worst.  I ridiculed this narcissistic stance when Obama supporters were saying "I won't vote for Hillary in the general", and I feel really good about ridiculing you now.

        Get over yourself.

        by LiberalVirginian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:07:00 PM PDT

        •  BS

          Almost every post on this page, when HRC is leading, made it clear that the BO crowd would never vote for HRC, Please stop the bull shit.  I have several liberal friends who all but said the same thing.

          Lets not kid ourselfs the BO crowd would never vote for Hiillary she is the devel and enemy.  I quick read of daily smear hillary makes that clear.  

          david

          by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM PDT

          •  I apologize for more than 3 word sentences.

            Lets not kid ourselfs the BO crowd would never vote for Hiillary she is the devel and enemy.

             

            Even if I agree with you on this (and I will admit that I have seen WAAAAY more narcissitic "I'll never vote for Hillary" shit from Obama supporters than vice versa), countering with equally douchey shit that you'll never vote for Obama is, pure and simple, just as narcisstic.  

            Again, get over yourself.  Hillary has (almost) lost the nomination, let's move on and get behind Barack because it's the classy, Democratic thing to do.

            by LiberalVirginian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:13:36 PM PDT

            •  Dude

              What is with all the narcisstic comments.  I dont think you understand what that word means.  Go back to one of you liberal arts text books that you didnt read and look it up.  Making that kind of statement requires something more than reading someones post.  These repeated statements calling me a narcisstic are odd.

              Are you living in your mom's basement?  Using some old computer on a telphone line.  Did you drop out of school?  Was you last class in college in some humanities class on personality disorders and now you Dx everyone over the internet?

              Just wondering.

              david

              by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM PDT

              •  What's truly hilarious...

                Is that in the previous two posts, we both misspelled "narcissistic".

                Anyway:

                Narcissistic, adj: Thinking too highly of oneself: conceited, egoistic, egoistical, egotistic, egotistical, vain, vainglorious.

                Clinging to your belief that voting for no one instead of Barack due to your personal offense to Obama's supporters, without thinking about the good of our country, is narcissistic, conceited, vain, and egotistical.  Pick whichever.

                Again, get over yourself.

                by LiberalVirginian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

              •  Oh, and by the way...

                I live in my mom's attic, I dropped out of high school, and my last class was some philosophy class on personality disorders.

                Please get your facts straight before the personal attacks.

                by LiberalVirginian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:36:40 PM PDT

              •  Uprated...

                for narcisstic (sic) reasons, I like my above comments.

                by LiberalVirginian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:42:53 PM PDT

          •  I would.

            Defeating McCain is about more than my ego, my favorite candidate, or anything I may or may not think one of them may or may not have done.

            It's crucial, and I'll definitely be there in November, voting for the Dem nominee.

            by kate mckinnon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:30:27 PM PDT

            •  Whichever is the loser, s/he will ask supporters

              to vote for the nominee. And will work for the nominee.

              That's how those hardened hearts get changed (or, at least, that's how the votes get cast).

              by Fonsia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:36:00 PM PDT

              •  good point.

                If HIllary is not the nominee,  you are quite right, she is the logical one to convince these folks to vote for Barack.

                I really had forgotten that.

                by kate mckinnon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM PDT

  •  Hey there.

    Actually, I thought you had decided to not vote for Obama even before the Drudge thing, which means that issue really wasn't the last straw for you.  Anyways, in the debate, Obama said that he took Clinton at her word, so that's that.  Have fun not voting for President.

    by BasharH on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM PDT

•  Did you...

  see the debate last night, where he said, "I take Sen. Clinton at her word."  Also, have you SEEN THE REST OF THIS CAMPAIGN?  I don't care if Drudge said it or not, I'm not surprised that everyone thought it was Sen. Clinton who released the photo.

  by dlh77489 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:35:52 PM PDT

  •  Selective outrage (nt)

    by slippytoad on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:54:00 PM PDT

•  Word of Drudge?

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but last night he said he accepted the statement that Hillary had nothing to do with it.  This in spite of a less than categorical denial by her campaign.

  by markus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM PDT

  •  bull shit

    That day his campaign came out, without even talking to anyone in the HRC campaignm and acused HRC of sending that nothing photo to drudge, period.  And then they said this is a pattern.  And this the second time the BO campaign acceptted a drudge post to attack HRC.  Remember the novak drudge hillary has something on BO that turned out to be NOTHING.

    I only vote for REAL democrats and a real democract would NEVER attack another democract based on the words or smears of a right wing hack like Drudge.  QED BO is no democrat that i will vote for.

    david

    by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:47:50 PM PDT

    •  et tu, giusd?

      I only vote for REAL democrats and a real democract would NEVER attack another democract based on the words or smears of a right wing hack

      I suppose in your world, a REAL democrat just attacks another democrat as being a right wing hack, as in Hillary accusing Barrack of 'Rovian tactics'

      by mr nj on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:58:28 PM PDT

      •  ???

        Hillary said that BO was using Rove smears.  BO takes the word of a right wing hack over HRC.  There is a difference.  If you dont see that i can explain it using small words and short sentences.

        david

        by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM PDT

        •  God, you are tedious!

          by kate mckinnon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM PDT

    •  well I guess you won't vote for Hillary either

      Since she has been trying to develop a relationship with Drudge since she started her campaign, going so far as to leak her Q-3 07 fundraising take in order to swipe the news cycle away from Obama who had policy speech on Iraq sceduled. read about it Clinton and Drudge

      by hasdrubal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:21 PM PDT

      •  DD

        Again i have never seen on piece of proff of this other than smears on this page.  

        Soon you will be accussing HRC of working wit but cats and dogs at the same time.  Drudge says so.

        david

        by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:07:26 PM PDT

        •  try the link I provided

          It's to a Guardian article on the matter, but then again if you read the article you wouldn't be able to claim that you have seen no proof linking Clinton to Drudge.                                                   here it is again

          by hasdrubal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:24:10 PM PDT

•  I am not going to say it is over

  That would be premature and just not good form.  (Hubris always bites you in the ass!).  That being said, McCain's attention exclusively to Obama at this point speaks volumes.

  by cavebird on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM PDT

  •  DUDE

    It is way over.  When she lost all four weekend primaries (WA, LA, NE. and Maine) it was over.  Now we are just waiting to finish out TX, OH, and PA and then HRC will withdraw.  But the bad, very very fing bad blood will still exist and i think it very likely a lot of HRC (who are on average more moderate than BO) will be bitter and pissed and may stay home or vote for McCain.  Maybe the second coming should have addressed this but no yet.

    As for me, the drudge story was the last draw.  I will still give monies to Dean and the DNC and vote for congress and the senate but i will be leaving the slot for president blank and from what i read on this page and MDD i think a lot of other hard core HRC supporters will be doing the same.  Maybe not a lot of votes but it could be 2-3%.  But come on BO is going to win by what 30% so he doesnt need or want HRC voters.  Clealry this page makes that clear.

    david

    by giusd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:54:43 PM PDT

•  Newsflash for you: its been over for weeks

  The Republicans have recognized this and started going after Obama with both barrels, and positioning their lunatic candidate as a moderate with no push-back.

  The only ones who try to pretend the race hasn't been over for weeks are the CNNs of the world -- the middle managers want to keep their ratings up, and the fat cats up top want the Democrats to continue savaging one another as long as possible.

  by Minerva on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM PDT

•  I should probably post this on an open thread ...

  but this diary's title just reinforced what this Obama supporter heard today deep in the heart of "Hillary Country" i.e. NYC.

  I took a half day from work and went to the doctor today: a morning's worth of tests on an empty stomach with the anxiety of an upcoming surgery nagging at me.

  This of course gave this New Yorker the excuse to lunch at an upscale upper East Side Manhattan French bistro that my husband and I have always loved. It's the kind of place that has a sommelier during the lunch hour.

  Despite what Hillary claims as her demographic, monied professional women over 55-60ish are her base, at least in NYC.

  So today, while I sat alone eating the luxurious duck confit and wracking up a bill my husband will be peeved at me for, I eavesdropped on some fellow diners: the woman 70ish and dressed expensively and impeccably (I felt slightly shabby in comparison) and her salt-and-pepper haired African American male companion.

  They were obviously longtime close friends. The snippet that I overheard:

  She: She is ruining it for women politicians for a generation to come. She's so divisive.

  He: Why do you think this has any greater significance than just her own ambitions?

  She: Because she will stop at nothing. She will tear the Democrats apart to win. She just doesn't know that it's time to stop. They've never known when to stop ... the two of them.

  These were not political types; they were NYC society types. And when the Democratic power-brokers in NYC dissapprove of a NY pol, the finances of their campaigns can get pretty complicated.

  I think when you've lost the senior professional women demographic you are headed toward losing all thinking women altogeter

  by Glinda on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:37:29 PM PDT

•  Fat lady has finished complete Wagner Ring

  They just haven't dragged her off the stage yet.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:45:11 PM PDT