It's with mixed emotions that I write this diary.

I've been a supporter of Hillary Clinton's since the 1992 Clinton For President campaign, when "Hillary 2000" was a strong underground meme.

I've been proud to vote for her twice as my Senator from New York State, proud to have her represent me, and I know that if given the chance, she would be a phenomenal president.

But I'm realistic enough to see that it's over.

Obama is going to win New Hampshire, and then South Carolina, and then become our next nominee for President.

And I do have to say, I'm idealistic enough to be deeply moved by a campaign that so successfully practices what it preaches, by bringing the best of grassroots organizing to bear, combined with a serious and values-driven approach to political discourse.

Congratulations, Obama.  And congratulations, too, to Obama's supporters here on Kos.

On today's "Morning Joe," David Shuster went out on a limb to make some bold predictions about both the primaries and the general.

When the transcript comes out, I'll link to it. Meanwhile, I'm posting here from memory -- thought this was pretty interesting!

Shuster's predictions after the jump:

So far, the Iowa polls that ask for second choices are assuming that voters will make their own decisions at caucus time.  But that's not how the Iowa caucuses work -- remember Kucinich and Edwards' "deal"?  Good organizations (which all three major candidates have) will provide a playbook for their caucusers (probably with "caucus captains" in each location) which includes instructions on whom to support if the candidate of choice is eliminated.

At some point, most caucuses are going to get to a three-way battle between Obama, Edwards, and Hillary. One of them's going to lose. And which way their supporters go may have a big impact on who wins.

So here's some speculation what some of the campaigns' strategies might be, and how they'd impact the caucus results.

[note: I support Hillary, but this is NOT a candidate diary!]

This is just a random thought -- one for which I can't even claim originality, since who knows how many people have thought of it before.  And I'm not really sure that it's a full diary's worth of an idea.  But it hit me so hard and fast that I thought it might be worth putting out there.

What's wrong with Republicans?

They're reckless.

Reckless with the economy -- driving us into debt, spilling jobs overseas, trashing the dollar.

Reckless with our army -- plunging into war with no plan for the peace, overextending our troops,

Reckless with our reputation -- losing friends, allies, and influence it took generations to build up.

Republicans. Too reckless to be trusted again.

Anyone see Hardball tonight? It was a brutal, vicious pigpile on Obama -- Tweety, Fineman, Gregory, and O'Donnell -- and each one of them went nuts on the Senator from Illinois.

I was flabbergasted. I will admit (hell, I'll trumpet) that I'm a Hillary supporter, so I didn't mind them all talking about how she was extending her lead, winning debates, etc. But I noticed that there was a big focus on Obama -- his diffidence, his caution, his lack of attack. And one meme kept popping up (mostly from Matthews): "he's got to either hit her harder, or get out of the way for someone who can."

Wow. I realized what i was seeing. AMAZING Edwards campaign spin.

It's starting to look like Rudy Giuliani may well be the Republican nominee.

I think he's an attractive candidate for them for a few reasons -- he forces the Democrats to spend money and time in the Northeast and California, he's not a Washington insider, and he can run on competence and safety based on his success in reducing crime in New York.

I also think he's a terrible choice who'd make a lousy President, and might quite possibly be a grave danger to global security with his finger on the button.

I'm interested to hear different folks' opinions on how to beat him.  How does the playing field look with Rudy as the GOP standard-bearer, and how does it affect our strategy?

Hillary's new ad is very good. It's not perfect, but it's very good.

It's going to appeal to women and working people and just plain old Democrats -- it shows a human side to her, it shows her taking on Bush/Cheney, and it shows her promising not to be out of touch.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that her poll numbers in Iowa will go up at least a bit -- and possibly fairly significantly -- as a result of her media buy.

What I didn't realize is that she has already closed most of the gap with Edwards and is clearly leading Obama.

Folks have been buzzing the last few days about Hillary's negatives and their potential impact on downticket races.  

There's no doubt that Hillary has had high negatives in lots of different polls since the campaign began -- almost always the highest in the field. (She has also often had among the highest positive ratings, but let's leave that aside for now).

If the election were held today, these negatives would be a big challenge.  Clearly, for Hillary to win and for downticket Democrats to win, we'd all love to see the negatives come down.  But historically, candidates' negatives almost always go up during campaigns -- the other side inevitably spends millions to make sure they do, and some of it sticks!

So what's happening with Hillary? Is there any evidence one way or another?

Well, yes, there is.

I think all of us are probably surprised that the Obama/Hillary counterpunching has turned out to be so extensive.  

Among the latest comments, Obama's jumped out at me:

I’m not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric. I don’t want a continuation with Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney light. I want a fundamental change.

Poll time!

I don't know much about Insider Advantage -- but they have a new poll out, post-SC debate.

Clinton: 43%
Obama: 28%
Edwards: 13%
Richardson: 5%
Biden: 4%
Gravel: 1%
Others: 1%
Undecided: 5%

The telephone survey, conducted July 24, interviewed 536 respondents who said that "if the South Carolina primary were held today" they would vote in the Democratic primary.
The survey was weighted for age, race, and gender. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.

Their analysis is that Obama and Clinton are splitting African-American voters, but that she's getting 51% of white voters in addition. I'm surprised that she's doing so well there.

Clearly the YouTube debate didn't hurt Hillary in SC... maybe the opposite.

[title of diary edited for aesthetic reasons]

use this thread to post  predictions about tonight's debate -- so you can brag on 'em if you're right (and forget they ever happened if you're wrong).

I'll start:

• Edwards will refer to Ann Coulter
• Obama will attack a GOP candidate (maybe even Rudy)
• Hillary will admit that she made mistakes with healthcare in 1993 (but won't admit she made a mistake with AUF)

What esoteric issues do you think CNN will pick out of the YouTube submissions?  Big points if you guess those...

Since no one has diaried this yet, I'm doing so -- with a bit of trepidation, however, since I'm not a regular diarist...

CNN and their New Hampshire partners released a post-debate poll today, conducted by the University of New Hampshire.  309 adults who say they plan to vote in the Democratic primary. Survey was conducted June 6-10. MOE +/- 6%.

results after jump...

Some quick takes on the DNC Eastern Regional meeting today in New York.  I attended as an observer (and Simon Rosenberg partisan).  Each candidate for Chair spoke for 5 minutes, with a lot of Q&A afterwards...