Drip, drip, drip

Today the New York Times weighs in on Hillary Clinton continuing her campaign, saying that while she has the right to to do so:

...we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel — neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas.  [...]

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that "Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She added: "There’s a pattern emerging here."

Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.

Meanwhile, Obama has picked up three more superdelegates and the endorsement of the American Federation of Government Employees union.

•  Rasmussen: it's over

  Rassmussen has posted that they are going to stop polling Hillary v. Obama to focuse on the General Election: Obama v. McCain.  It's over.
  http://rasmussenreports.com/...

  by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:49 AM PDT

  •  Wow

    Makes me think of Sharpton's remarks.  Theater is empty, lights are out.  It's over.  No one is watching any more Hillary.

    by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:35 AM PDT

    •  Theater enpty is telling. She probably had fewer

      at her rally in WV yesterday than Obama had following him at the Capitol.

      by Phil S 33 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:13 AM PDT

      •  yet she still is polling higher than Obama

        against McCain in many groups including among Democrats, and in electoral college votes matching both candidates against McCain, she has been alone in beating McCain for the last month in electoral college votes.
        

        by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:03:17 AM PDT

        •  Old news...

          Have you looked at the date on that poll?

          by Riddle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:47:36 AM PDT

          •  todays electoral college votes

            show her still beating McCain, not Obama, as she has been doing since PA. A picture of last week is the same going back a while, today she beats McCain 280/258.
            
            So I don't see huge demographic swings from week to week. This is really how it looks if you read the exit polls from each primary. Now that Rasmussen will not poll any more between Clinton and Obama, this is as much as we know(part of the ec poll is state by state Rasmussens.)

            by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM PDT

            •  Forgot the electoral college data

              link for today

              by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:07:53 AM PDT

            •  I believe you're cherry-picking results...

              You could as well have used Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, which today states (in part):

              The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the fourth straight day that Obama has had at least a one-point advantage over McCain. While it is not a statistically significant lead, it is the first time Obama has led McCain on consecutive days in two months. The last time Obama outpolled McCain for four straight days was in mid-February (see recent daily results). One key to this changing dynamic is that Obama now leads McCain among unaffiliated voters by nine percentage points.

              As we look to November, the Obama-McCain match-up will feature a clear generational component. Obama leads by twenty-three percentage points among voters under 40 while McCain leads by eleven among those over 50.

              by Riddle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:18 AM PDT

              •  yes that nationwide poll shows a general

                national preference, however, since the electoral college site I linked is compiling many state by state polls, it is perhaps more important, as it assigns likely states won or lost by the electoral college votes that decide elections.

                I would call it the opposite of cherry picking, as it is a composite of polls. And more relevant in the general, as it matches that data with electoral votes per state.

                From that we can see why big states that have more electoral votes are indeed more important to win than smaller states with few electoral college votes or hopelessly Republican dominated states. Not to diss those of us Democrats who live there, but just being realistic about chances to take the White House, which we really need to do.

                by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM PDT

        •  Wow! That poll tells us that Obama's campaign

          needs to teach the low income voters how McCain's party hurts them.  They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the MSM that it won't be easy.

          I have taught classes for kids with learning disabilities, and I learned not to use too many "big words."  I think that's how the "elitist" tag sticks.  My students felt really hurt when I used words they didn't understand.  They thought I was trying to humiliate them.  The Republicans realize this, which is why Bush says "nucular" and so on.

          I wonder if they could do focus groups to see how these folks can be reached.  

          Seriously, if anyone should vote for Obama, it's the lower income voters.  They are voting against their own self interests, voting for McCain.

          He needs to talk to them directly.  Tell them he knows how they are finding it hard to make ends meet and tell them that he will help them.  Tell them that Bush and the Republicans only give the American people lip service, but listen to the lobbyists, who are shipping their jobs overseas and closing American plants.  

          Look straight into the camera and ask them to hear what he has to say.  "I am working for you and your family, not the lobbyists and special interests that do what is best for the CEOs and the real 'elitists,' who only care about their bottom line, not yours."

          Perhaps he could hold a press conference or an ad in a town that has been hit hard, in front of a closed down company to illustrate his points.  (That's another way to reach them: visually.  They remember images, which is why the Republicans focus on flag pins, a visual, to get accross concepts.)

          Or he could go to a grocery store, shopping with his kids, and pick up gallon of milk and say, "Milk has gone up X% this week.  Then be pumping gas into his car, shake his head, "Ouch!"  Then be with a group of average folks and tell them how he will address their problems.  "Look, I have a plan to help you and America work again.  I have a plan to build better, more fuel efficient cars..."

          by CIndyCasella on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:11:41 AM PDT

          •  no they do not prefer McCain to Obama

            but most of these groups prefer Clinton more than Obama against McCain. Only the last three demographic groups prefer Obama more than Clinton over McCain. What it shows is Obama is less likely than Clinton to beat McCain, looking at these general demographic groups.

            details at gallup

            by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM PDT

            •  Obama is our candidate in November.

              I interpreted the poll with only McCain/Obama in mind.

              The numbers are in, and we must do what is best for America, which is to elect a Democratic President with excellent judgment to avoid unnecessary wars that hurt our national security and bleed us into bankruptcy.  

              I hope we will all re-unite and rally for Obama.  The sooner, the better.

              by CIndyCasella on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:48:35 PM PDT

          •  Prices going up

            I agree, that would be a good ad.

            The price of the bread I use has gone up $0.20 in the last two or three weeks.

            by nanobubble on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM PDT

    •  Light's out?

      Guess again!

      by HorseThief on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:01:57 AM PDT

      •  Candles snuffed!

        by Lepanto on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:06 AM PDT

      •  I point out though...

        that The Politico is running with a story that says that HRC has many superdelegates who, for a variety of reasons, are remaining "quiet" until the time comes.  (Don't blame me...I'm just reporting the reportage.)

        According to a senior Democratic aide, Clinton asked some uncommitted superdelegates if they could commit to her privately — without the political risks of a public endorsement — so that she could gauge whether she has the support she feels she needs to remain a viable candidate.

        A Clinton staffer acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was in the process of "counting up" superdelegates because, "at the end of the day, we have to know where our numbers are."

        "We do have some private supporters," the staffer said. "[But] for their own political purposes, they can’t be on record."

        by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:09 AM PDT

        •  I call bullshit on that

          Not on you for quoting it but that strikes me as a pretty transparent ploy by Kamp Klinton.  They're full of shit seven days of the week and it also doesn't make any sense.  It makes far more sense that Obama has more in reserve.  

          by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:17:09 AM PDT

          •  Oh...

            I agree.  This thing is ovah.  I just took a stroll through the political reporting on MSNBC and both First Read and Russert are brutal.  Here's Russert's response to the politico story...

            Tim Russert:  I talked to a lot of active Clinton supporters and I asked them what they thought. Based on my reporting, what I learned was I could not find an objective Democrat who did not think the race was over – that Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee.

            Msnbc: There’s a story of Hillary Clinton asking superdelegates to quietly support here so they won’t face public scrutiny.  Is she really getting anyone to do that or is it just a way to explain the lack of reports of people switching to her?

            Russert:  I think it’s a painful period for the Clinton campaign. She has fought a very energetic race, but the math just isn’t there. If you add up all the elected delegates that are still to be won and the undeclared superdelegates, she would have to win 70 percent of those and no one has done that in 48 contests.

            If you just take the elected delegates, she’d have to win 88 percent of them and no one has come close to doing that.

            It’s just a difficult process to go through, but again, people who support her and like her are telling me – they won’t do it on the record – "We know it’s over. It’s just finding the best way to end it."

            MSNBC:  Russert on Politics

            by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:21:07 AM PDT

            •  Something I don't get

              is, why am I supposed to have sympathy & compassion for Hillary Clinton?  She is rich.  She is successful.  She is a US senator.  She has a trillion options and opportunities not open to me.  She is clearly concerned solely with her own best interest and does not give a shit about mine.

              I don't want to alienate supporters.  But if they are unable to see that Barack Obama is more in line with their self interest than John McCaine Mutiny, there's no hope for them anyway.  This is not a 7th grade class election.

              by KibbutzAmiad on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:30:24 AM PDT

              •  That has been going on the whole time

                It has been very personal in regards to Hillary.  There has definitely been a different standard and something that reminds me very much of a royal impulse that people have towards her.  

                Her supporters very often been very obviously projecting as they accuse Obama supporters of making everything personal.

                Witness too the way people respond to any criticism of Chelsea.  She's a grown woman, a lawyer (right?) with a ton of name recognition out campaigning for a presidential candidate, including private calls to superdelegates but if you call bullshit on her for something you get lumped in with Rush Limbaugh making fun of a little girl.

                There has definitely been an embarassing royal family treatment going on this whole time.  The bar was lowered a great deal for Hillary and she simply did not get over it.

                by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:36:21 AM PDT

                •  I think Chelsea

                  is a hedge fund manager but agree with everything else you said : )

                  I am just tired of hearing simultaneously about what balls of titanium Hillary has while at the same time being told everyone must tiptoe around her feelings.

                  She has $100+ million .  That should buy some emotional assuagement.

                  by KibbutzAmiad on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:44:04 AM PDT

                  •  That's right I think

                    I was trying to remember if she had gone to law school like the folks.  

                    What they've done with the personal stuff is a cynical campaign ploy.  They imply that Obama has gotten an unfair advantage because the black community rallied around him in a big way.  What is always ignored in the discussion is the fact that a majority of the Democratic electorate are women.  And the anecdotal evidence of people voting based on that association is quite abundant.  

                    It's not that you don't have a right to vote based on the desire to see a woman president, it gave me extra reason to consider Hillary's run in the beginning.  It's that they have been very divisive and manipulative in trying to fully take advantage of that natural sentiment.  

                    Anyone without their head deep in the sand knows that women are victimized in our society all the time.  We've hardly reached some completely post-sexist era all of a sudden.  So there are strong feelings to be manipulated if you're a cynical enough politician. Hillary and her crew certainly are.  Hence we get the 'boys club' references and all that.  Hillary has hardly been shut out of power and wealth in this country.  But because so many women have been she intentionally appeals to their personal anger and frustration so that it will be projected on her as the victim.  

                    They have lowered the bar for her every way they could in this thing no matter the cost to actual feminism or race relations or my digestion.  

                    by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:58:34 AM PDT

                  •  Well said.

                    She plays a consumate victim while also playing the consumate alpha.  She gets away with it to the extent the public, press and her p.r. staff allow it.  She had great surrogates who know how to play the game...at the least, they've been doing it for a long time.  And last but not least, she knows how to parse with the best of 'em.

                    by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM PDT

                  •  Maybe...

                    Perhaps she had hopes of joining the Billionaire Club, the way Bush, Cheney et al have been working on since Day 1.

                    by Spoc42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:17:26 AM PDT

          •  Yeah, the handful of supers who actually met

            with her yesterday; that's okay, she can have those.

            by PittsburghPete on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

        •  "for a variety of reasons"

          One being, of course, that it's no fun to endorse someone who has no choice but to race bait for the next week and a half.

          Maybe when she's regained her sense of decency they'll declare their support?

          Oh wait... race will be over by then... hm...

          Lights out.

          by chicago DEM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:22:13 AM PDT

        •  This is exactly the rumor that I would spread

          if I knew I had lost but wanted to stay in the race to recoup dough and sew up some delegates to fend off Gore in case Obama slips on a banana peel between now and Labord Day.

          by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:24:44 AM PDT

          •  Yep, it also sets her up again

            to (1) not take responsibility for an ill-advised action she's taken [the supers made me do it!] an (2) allows her camp to brand more people Judases.

            by conlakappa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:05:05 AM PDT

        •  [sotto voice]

          We've secretly replaced our delegates' reputations with Folger's Crystals.

          Let's see if anybody notices...

          by Riddle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:51:01 AM PDT

  •  Id like to see them poll the race a little longer

    so that we can see if Obama really opens up a large lead nationally among Democrats.  It would be a good sign that Democrats think this race is over as much as the press does.

    by smash artist on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:42 AM PDT

    •  they will for a bit longer, it seems

      With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race
      ...
      While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

      by Yirmiyahu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:07 AM PDT

    •  It's already in his site:

      Tracking poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Two nights of interviews for today’s update were completed after the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries. For those two nights on a stand-alone basis, Obama leads Clinton by eleven percentage points.

      by RichM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:30:18 AM PDT

  •  you beat me to it

    I'm so confused by the traditional media. What suddenly woke them up to the fact that this thing is over??

    On Feb. 19, Obama led by by 160 pledged delegates; today he leads by 162.

    by Yirmiyahu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:55 AM PDT

    •  IMO

      He needed a big win post-Wright.

      by discocarp on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:50 AM PDT

      •  I think they just got bored of primary season

        by Yirmiyahu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:01:18 AM PDT

    •  Ratings decline?

      People sick of it?

      by Heart of the Rockies on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:09 AM PDT

      •  I know I was!

        I turned off the glass teat long ago.  The only person I watch now, is KO.

        by Alohilani on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:12:23 AM PDT

    •  Superdelegate tallies over the same period. n/t

      by Clyde the Cat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:12:43 AM PDT

    •  I woke up.. suddenly just I woke up to the

      Bl - aw - ging.

      by 88kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:15:06 AM PDT

    •  I was telling my dad about this; he was

      going on and on about how Timmeh was saying that it was over based on the math.  I said that Timmeh knew this back in late February but wouldn't report it because it was in their best interest to keep the race going.  The fact of the matter is that this race was over after Obama's 12 state win streak, and especially after TX and OH did not provide a game changer.  Since that time the MSM has been artificially sustaining this race for their purposes.  There are few news people who have any credibility left, in my opinion.

      by PittsburghPete on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:06:11 AM PDT

    •  Not the absolute number

      but the percentage of remaining delegates she'd need.

      In February, he was up almost as much, but there were far more to go. Now she needs almost 70% of the total delegates to win and 75% of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up in the pledged count.

      by thejeff on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:27:11 AM PDT

    •  She's run out of space.

      It wasn't Obama's convincing win in N. Carolina. It was that Hillary needed a convincing win. I called it that Hillary needed 25 more delegates than Obama coming out 0of last Tuesday to have a shot.
      If she followed up that with comparable wins for the rest of the primary season, she'd be 100 behind Obama in the elected delegates with a convincing story for the supers.
      Instead, she's further behind in the elected delegates.
      40% of the (pledged) delegates remaining on Monday were elected Tuesday.

      by Frank Palmer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM PDT

  •  Not worth the money.

    Someone tell HRC's contributors.

    by Inland on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:13 AM PDT

  •  Owch!

    by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:23 AM PDT

  •  But...but...

    It's her turn! She's owed!

    by kitebro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:55:20 AM PDT

    •  I can just see Hillary in the back of the room

      At an Obama meeting flailing her arms yelling "Hey--look at me!  I'm more electable!  Whitey's not going to vote for him!"

      by catnap1972 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:16:08 AM PDT

  •  It's Crystal Clear

    by justlen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:23:35 AM PDT

    •  Funny!

      But did it have to be hitler as Senator Clinton?  I mean, really; hitler?

      Doesn't invoking hitler lose the argument or something....

      Anyway- funny video none the less.

      And all too believable as to how it goes down in her war room....

      in the end

      by skyounkin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:38:13 AM PDT

      •  That's not fair to Hitler!

        Just kidding of course.

        by PittsburghPete on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM PDT

  •  Cripes

    That's huge.  

    by stonepier on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:29:17 AM PDT

•  Everyone who was complaining yesterday

  about the lack up superdelegate endorsements since Tuesday can now take a deep breath and relax :)

  by smash artist on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:23 AM PDT

•  pass the hat around, buy Hillary galoshes!

  the trickle will soon turn into a flood

  by Lepanto on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:53 AM PDT

  •  ...or hip waders

    ... or scuba gear

    by Swoosh on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:54 AM PDT

  •  to tell the truth

    I think that a steady trickle is probably more effective, because it keeps the narrative from being "and she was still in the race until the superdelegates forced her out by ganging up on her." I wouldn't be surprised if this trickle -- only a few a day, but every day -- is a conscious strategy of the party.

    by zemblan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:33 AM PDT

•  Buyers remorse

  We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But...

  by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:07 AM PDT

  •  You know you are in trouble when the next word is

    "But.."

    by Phil S 33 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:54 AM PDT

  •  This is their second editorial

    that essentially un-endorses her.

    by Heart of the Rockies on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:20 AM PDT

    •  Ed board wanted to endorse Obama

      but the publisher of the paper, who wields the final say on such matters, decided to go with Clinton against the actual editorial board's wishes.

      It seems like the New York Times is getting tired of being relevant :)

      by ekthesy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:24:18 AM PDT

•  Sorry Hillary

  You've used plausible deniability about twelve too many  times now re: racist themes. Most aren't buying what you're selling.

  by discocarp on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:39 AM PDT

  •  It's all she has left

    She can't offer better or even different ideas, so she carps on racist and mean tones.  I had thought she was made of better stuff (though I voted Obama).

    by ColoTim on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:53 AM PDT

  •  Aryans and Herrenvolk really really like her

    She knows her base.

    by Condi Lice on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:49 AM PDT

•  Obama needs 35.75% of remaining delegates

  You bet it's over!

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:56 AM PDT

  •  By BarackObama.com's numbers,

    It's now down to 34.73% needed for Obama!

    Hillary needs 69.99% of all remaining delegates to reach 2025.

    by nanobubble on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM PDT

    •  They just updated again - 34.45% needed now. (nt)

      by nanobubble on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:41 PM PDT

•  So, let's see who the Grey Lady endorses for the

  General
  grandpa Magoo ?

  by Lepanto on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:29 AM PDT

  •  Barack Obama

    by smash artist on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:13 AM PDT

•  It is disturbing that a pattern is emerging

  About the super-spineless Democrats that have yet to endorse despite the fact that the primaries and caucuses are over in their states.

  We need a break from them as well.

  by griz4u on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:15 AM PDT

  •  No Kidding!

    What, exactly, are they waiting to find out at this point of the game?  What have we found out since PA?  Nothing new at all.  These SDs are certainly weak.  If they want to hold on to see how Hillary will perform, then that means that they are looking for any reason at all not to endorse Obama.  Hillary is  sinking ship and if the SDs dont see it, then I question how fit they are to hold office.  There should be a list of these SDs and we should put a bull's eye on their back when their term is up and they want to run for re-election.  

    by Goose for Obama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:30 AM PDT

    •  The Obama Camp

      Has already made it clear that if they wanted to, they could roll out 50 supers in one day at this point, but they are coordinating the release of SD endorsements to be a steady trickle for a couple of reasons.

      One is that they don't want Sen Clinton to feel pressured. You and I may not have much in the tank left when it comes to regard for Clinton's feelings at this point, but I've always held that Obama is a much more thoughtful person than I am.... So they know they have this wrapped up.

      The other reason, which they haven't publicly stated to my knowledge but I assume to be the case, is that they would rather reach the delegate threshold w/ a Primary win (Oregon).

      So the bottom line is there are probably over a 100 SD's that are willing to endorse Obama immediately, but they are strategically holding back those endsts at the request of the Obama camp.

      by John in Chicago on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:19:31 AM PDT

      •  NO!

        I will not accept your extremely logical and probable explanation.  I need instant gratification!

        by Goose for Obama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:23:04 AM PDT

        •  LMAO!!

          I like your inasane want and gratification- I want to subscribe to your newsletter....

          Why haven't I gotten your newsletter yet??

          by skyounkin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:41:16 AM PDT

      •  Supers don't want to be seen deciding this.

        The supers would rather have the majority of the popularly-elected delegates locked up for Obama before the flood begins.
        Probably the Obama campaign shares that.
        Remember the screams on this blog about the supers stealing the nomination from the public will?

        Anyway, what is ten more days after all these months?

        by Frank Palmer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:32:21 AM PDT

    •  Some, I believe...

      Do have an excuse.  They have to remain 'neutral' for appearances.   But that is a very small number.  People like Reid, Pelosi, Dean and Ritter (Governor of Colorado - where the convention is being hosted).  But it is pretty much time everybody else gets off the fence.  Yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Gore and Mr. Edwards.

      by RichM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:34:53 AM PDT

      •  and Mr. Emanual

        time to become a part of the ILLINOIS Delegation.

        by Eman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM PDT

  •  Disturbing pattern

    I have been saying this for months now.  Nothing has changed since Super Tuesday and yet the democratic party is allowing Hillary to trash Barack. I am a white hard-working 38 year old American woman who is utterly disgusted with my party. If the roles were reversed, the Supers would have declared ages ago. It is dawning on me now that my own party is a bunch of spineless bureaucrats that, deep down inside, are nervous about a black man being their standard bearer. They could and should put a stop to this madness RIGHT NOW.  Shameful...just shameful.

    by demsacton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:56:03 AM PDT

    •  Sounds too much like

      the current Congress, although as I understand it Obama's biggest support among SD's is among elected officials.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

      by Heart of the Rockies on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:05:47 AM PDT

    •  I wonder if

      Bill Clinton and Hillary haven't learned another Rovian trick -- that of quietly threatening those that move against him or the republicans.

      I wonder if dem SDs are 'afraid' of Bill and Hill.  They show every sign of being rather nasty in the clenches/trenches (whatever analogy works).

      by GrandmaJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:12:46 AM PDT

      •  That's the question I ponder

        What kind of power do the Clintons hold for people to be so tip-toe-y around them.

        by Deltones on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:14:01 AM PDT

        •  How about this

          Bill, as an ex-President, has access to illegal wiretaps on the communications of the SDs. That way, blackmail pressure can be applied as necessary...

          snark tinfoil

          by Spoc42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:26:49 AM PDT

          •  With the crap

            that's been going on, it's probably not even far-fetched nowadays.

            by Deltones on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:40:37 AM PDT

      •  It's us.

        Back when all the declared supers were for Clinton, WE screamed about the supers deciding the nomination.
        They want to be seen waiting for the will of the people. That will come after Obama has the majority of the pledged delegates. He only has the majority of those now elected.

        by Frank Palmer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:35:52 AM PDT

    •  We all saw the Judas-afying of Bill Richardson

      and every undeclared SuperDelegate saw it as well.

      Very few of us, especially elected officials, could have withstood that type of public humiliation the way Bill Richardson, Senator Obama himself, and yes, even Dr. Wright have withstood it.

      Even some of us in the blogosphere have been subject to the vindictiveness of Camp Clinton, although none of us have had it as focused as the three men above.

      While I don't like nor accept the behavior of the remaining Supers, I do understand it.

      Even worse than her blatant racist play to "the hardworking, WHITE voters..." I find Clinton's even more blatant elitist sexism and entitlement yesterday "...too many people out there who think it is time for a woman..." worse than her blatant racism.

      BTW, did anyone else notice that Camp Clinton amended its January financials ON MAY 7, showing they really weren't $7.5 million in debt, but actually $12.5 million in debt?

      A math error of nearly $5 million dollars?  Another convenient mis-speak (this time on paper)?  Another lie of omission?  Who knows?

      by Eman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:31:08 AM PDT

    •  It was over...

      After Wisconsin.  After Super Tuesday, the race was tied.  But when Obama threw-up 11 unanswered contests, it was over.

      by RichM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:36:04 AM PDT

      •  Yup. She had no class then and no class now

        Couldn't be bothered to thank her Wisconsin supporters.  Pretended there wasn't even a primary.

        Soon she can pretend there wasn't even a primary season.

        by Eman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM PDT

  •  Very disappointed in Edwards this morning,failing

    to come out for Obama--even though he was close.  But he still didn't do it.  Weak, I thought.

    by Phil S 33 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:56:03 AM PDT

    •  I think he wants Obama,

      and Eliz wants Hillary.  I think they've made an agreement to  come out and endorse one person, together, and Eliz hasn't given up on Hillary yet.

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:32 AM PDT

      •  I think you are exactly right.

        by Phil S 33 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:35 AM PDT

    •  His candidacy had no traction

      for a reason.  Or many reasons.  And we supported him early on but by SC were very tepid in our support.

      by Heart of the Rockies on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:07:01 AM PDT

    •  I've been dissapointed in John Edwards

      Since, oh, around December of 2004 when he gleefully attacked Howard Dean for daring to say that he would also like Democrats to win votes in the deep south again. And then, after it was clear that Dean's message was resonating with voters, Edwards proceeded to basically reshape his stump speech to be a direct rip off of Dean's stump speech.

      I've been waiting to say that for a long time, and Edwards mamby pamby refusal to endorse - even after his state OVERWHELMINGLY chose Obama - is pathetic enough to cause me to stop keeping my opinion about that panderer inside anymore...

      by John in Chicago on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:24:23 AM PDT

      •  Oops

        I meant to write December of 2003

        by John in Chicago on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:24:52 AM PDT

  •  ...

    Some of them (Pelosi's daughter in particular) have come out and said that they will support whoever leads in pledged delegates when everything is over.

    Now that it's clear that he will lead, they should come out.  Unfortunately, I bet a lot of them wait until 6/3.

    by jfarelli on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:09 AM PDT

  •  Waiting

    According to reports they are waiting for Obama to get the majority of pledged delgates. His campaign expects to get there after Oregon (and Kentucky -- remember that he picks up delegates even from the staes he "loses"; so does she.)

    by Frank Palmer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:28:19 AM PDT

•  Hillary creates controversy

  Get loads of free media attention.

  Takes everyone's eye off Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee.

  Pat Buchannon shills for Hillary's campaign. Why? Because there is a caricature out there that Hillary is going to destroy the democratic party. Would she? Yes she would.

  by missliberties on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:27 AM PDT

  •  Does anyone else see the incongruence?

    if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses

    ?
    They advise her to drop out because it's a "terrible mistake" to continue, but then say "...shot at winning."

    We here know her integrity is long gone already.

    by LaughingPlanet on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:07:16 AM PDT

    •  They don't want to upset

      her or her supporters by pushing her out.

      by lookit on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:42:50 AM PDT

•  So why hasn't the Times withdrawn...

  ...their endorsement? They've had a string of editorials criticizing her. C'mon, NY Times, walk the walk.

  by Veritas78 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:50:22 AM PDT

  •  the NYT

    Regrettably, the NYT has become a corrupt and cowardly outfit.  The silence of their failure to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney has long since become deafening.  And, of course, they helped enable the Iraq invasion through their use of Judith Miller's stenography for the Pentagon.  They obviously endorsed the wrong candidate -- the one who, like them, helped enable the Iraq invasion.  Their failure to unequivocally withdraw their endorsement if of a piece with all this.  They and Nancy Pelosi seem to be reflections of each other: cowardly and corrupt.

    by 233rex0 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:20:31 AM PDT

  •  what is there to withdraw. The NY primary...

    ...which is what the editorial was about, was on February 4.

    I, too, am an Obama supporter, but read Krugman today and do what he says.

    by Barth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

•  With all of those 'experts' surrounding her...

  why is it that no one has advised her that the most gracious  thing she can do for her public persona is to concede.

  Wouldn't Bill Clinton better serve the universe (and their reputation) by directing his attention to the people of Burma?

  :::::

  by nowheredesign on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:50:52 AM PDT

  •  She needs money

    She can still get her supporters to donate to take some of the sting out of the millions in debt.

    by missliberties on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:55 AM PDT

    •  If she conceded, I'd help to retire her debt..

      I'm sure tons of people would.

      :::::

      by nowheredesign on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:02 AM PDT

      •  ALSO: Wouldn't that be a great healing headline:

        Obama Supporters Pitch In to Retire Clinton's Debt.

        :::::::

        by nowheredesign on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:53 AM PDT

      •  Let her retire her own debt.

        Responsibility.  It's a good thing.

        by Alohilani on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:55:43 AM PDT

        •  I helped Chris Dodd Retire his Debt.

          She was a legitimate candidate. What's the problem?

          ::::

          by nowheredesign on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:59 AM PDT

          •  Chris Dodd

            was an honorable man.  If Obama wants to do fundraisers to ask his supporters to contribute to Senator Clinton's debts, that is fine, but I don't believe it would be ethical for him to take money already donated for his campaign and give it to her.  Many of his donors, including me, do not have a great deal of money and our contributions are sometimes difficult to make.    Why should we bail out a multi-millionaire who made bad choices unless we CHOOSE to do so.

            by Fabienne on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:27 AM PDT

            •  I wasn't implying that Obama should ask.

              Sorry if that wasn't clear.

              While I don't think that the Clintons ran her campaign honorably to the degree that I find myself questioning their honor, there are voters out there who are precisely on the other end of the spectrum.

              Like it or not, there needs to be some consensus. That's all I'm saying.

              :::::

              by nowheredesign on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:10:28 AM PDT

              •  Let me weigh in for a moment

                In a thread yesterday on the same subject, someone commented that Obama's contributors were the "small" kind $ 10, 20, 50 type.   They contributed to his campaign despite a severe pinch to their pocket-books.  

                Hillary's on the other hand were $2,300 types, Lobbyists and PAC's.  These are the folks that have maxed out now.   And Hillary's campaign had the arrogance of "inevitability" - so they didn't really care to seek support from (or represent) the "small donor".

                Should Obama's "small donors" now have to pinch their pocket-books further - and pay money for a candidate that truly doesn't care one bit for them?   And one that is spouting dangerous and divisive rhetoric about race?

                My conscience will not allow me to support the Clintons in any public fund raising - ever.

                by griz4u on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:29:02 AM PDT

                •  That's a good point, but...

                  Lobbyists and PACs are generally opportunists; one might label them "fair weather friends."

                  If her debt is what's keeping her in, I think it's prudent to help get her out.

                  ::::

                  by nowheredesign on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:35:45 AM PDT

                •  If Clinton believes she's a good bet

                  for this country, let her donate her own 11 million dollars to that endeavor.  Else, why should others (especially those non-100 million dollar tax bracketers) pay for the risk of her promises.

                  It's called putting your (own) money where your mouth is.  

                  This isn't a Clinton bash, I hold this truth to be self-evident for any rich person running for office.    

                  by Uncle Moji on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:33:06 AM PDT

            •  Its not only unethical.

              Its illegal, as well.  Obama CAN'T use funds from his campaign to retire Hillary's debts.

              http://www.slate.com/...

              by smeesq on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:13:24 AM PDT

          •  Dodd didn't run a toxic campaign.

            Dodd also didn't try to kneecap Obama, and destroy the Democratic Party simultaneously. Let the cadre of bigots that surround her, bail her out, since she is so beloved by them.

            by Alohilani on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:08:32 AM PDT

          •  Dodd didn't acquire his debt in order to function

            as a McCain surrogate, foment division and hatred in our party, and drag the contest on long past when it was competitive, all the while improving the GOP candidate's odds in the GE.  If I wanted to fund that sort of thing I could just donate to the NRA.

            by lockewasright on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:33:22 AM PDT

      •  I agree with the sentiment but Fuck that,

        the Clinton's are more than rich enough. Let Hillary get her o