Gimme a hug.

I'm supposed to go around hugging Hillbots. So come here. Gimme a hug.

Blow your gasket already and check into rehab.

I've written over and over that she lost this thing months ago in Wisconsin and people have just been being nice to her because she is who she is. She's done a George Bush and has used all of her political capital; she's in a downward spiral now and is only flushing politcal future further and further down the tank.

Donna Brazille is an honorable person, and when she speaks, she is more than likely speaking for Al Gore who I'm sure is taking as much pleasure as I am in watching Hillary make a fool out of herself-much like you gasket.

Yeah. There really was no plan B. I think it never crossed Hillary's mind that she might not get the nomination.

That alone should disqualify her from the presidency.

Yes, the Clinton campaign has been living in a one day at a time state of disarray since February 5th.

I also agree that the parallels between the Bush administration and the Clinton campaign are striking. They're both in bubbles where "perception is reality" has been taken to the nth degree.

I've been saying this for months about Hillary, and one of the reasons I began to think she'd be a terrible president: the Clintons move from one immediate political goal to the next immediate political goal, with no long term strategy, vision or assessment of consequences. They strike at their most immediate enemy and then lurch to the next one. It's why someone who made the remark about RFK's assassination and saw no reason to apologize for the anxiety that it may have caused the Obama family can so easily move to demanding that Obama renounce and reject Fr. Pfleger (even though Obama had) and use actual outrage that Obama knew this guy. On a dime, she turned, in full outrage mode. Strike at the immediate enemy in front of her -- no idea that people would connect the cognitive dissonance.

It literally began to scare me about her possibly being President. It's more than just making all decisions for political reasons instead of governance (of course that bothers me too). It's that I doubt she has the skills to assess her words and actions in any meaningful way.

Interesting article, especially the part about how they are still wondering how she lost with all of her entrenched advantages. They are still looking back, not to the future, so it's no surprise that they don't have a plan.

At one point, I think, Rudolph Giuliani had a clear if not overwhelming lead in polls for Republican candidates. Surely they understood that at least some of Clinton's polling lead related to name recognition and not "real" support. I just think that many of her supporters are too quick to blame themselves or various strategic or tactical decisions, when, in reality, it's just probably the fact that anyone with her name recognition has support that is wider than it is deep. In other words, the lead really should have been heavily discounted, and they should have been more in fighting mode right from the start.

You know, I've been getting solicitations from Clinton for at least four years, and she has never, and I mean, not once, ever, mentioned Iraq. Why is that? Why is it so hard to recognize?

It's 4 delegates. They have 1/2 vote each at the convention but they count as 4 delegates now.

And he had an ugly jacket. Totally representative of a campaign that is stuck in the 90's - it never occurred to him that that pattern wouldn't broadcast well in HDTV.

Welcome to the 21st century, Ickes!

Interesting, but if they were looking to maximize what they could get, why not put up a bigger fight to count all of Florida? That's 19 more delegates. Instead Ickes went ballistic over the Michigan compromise plan "stealing" 4 delegates from Clinton.

My theory is that the Clinton camp conceded half votes for FL, hoping to get a better compromise for MI. Perhaps they have stronger party support in MI (Levin?) than in FL (Wexler). Also, they now seem to have a stronger legal argument for MI.

What Clinton succeeded in doing yesterday was getting the full delegations from both states seated. In making a big stink about seating those two "rogue" states, she will get the leadership credit for going against the party's harsh punishment and winning something for the voters. This will be a positive in the eyes of voters the Dems need in Nov.

Also, Clinton effectively moved the finish line, buying more time for her expected popular vote totals to come in this week. I'm disappointed she didn't get more delegates from the rules committee, but I think her ultimate strategy is quite shrewd.

Ickes probably would have threatened to fight almost any decision. But after this weekend, Clinton is much stronger going into the last two primaries.

I suspect the strategy was to leave with some point they can argue was wrongly decided, to keep open the avenue of a credentials committee appeal.

Also, Obama may not win enough delegates this week. He was supposed to have enough delegates by now. The win for Clinton was to make Obama fight for every last damn delegate and vote.

The campaign needs some argument to continue past Tuesday's contests, other than just trying to change more SDs. An agreed upon solution, even on favorable terms to Hillary, wouldn't really do that. An "unfair" decision to "disenfranchise" 600,000 voters is a cause they can fight for.

Watching the rules committee meeting, it was clear to me that Clinton's argument (count every vote) has more perceived moral weight than Obama's (follow the rules).

You can tell how well Clinton scored yesterday by how incensed Donna Brazile is today.

Fosberry said the Clinton forces wouldn't agree to the MI solution because they wanted to "leave with some point they can argue was wrongly decided, to keep open the avenue of a credentials committee appeal."

Bingo! That makes sense. Keep everything to a sound bite, appeal to those with the most elementary understanding of all this. Be able to say: "Votes were stolen, people were disenfranchised. They had voted for 'uncommitted' but those votes were given to Obama. That's piracy!! hijacking!! unAmerican!"

Fortunately, there is an equally simplistic answer that can be give: IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

As soon as Obama has 2210 delegates (the number he would need if MI and FL had been given full votes and if Obama was given none of the MI delegates), he will be "challenge-proof."

The 'disenfranchisement' had no effect, and there will literally be nothing gained by a challenge on the convention floor.

Right now, if the contests in PR, SD, and MD are evenly split (43 each), Obama will need about 20 delegates to clinch (at 2118) and 112 delegates to become "challenge-proof" (at 2210). There are roughly 213 uncommitted superdelegates (and a few Edwards pledged delegates who haven't committed). Since he's been getting about 3/4 of the endorsements, I think it's safe to predict that he will get at least half of those remaining. Perhaps very soon. (Two more today - so the 'needed' numbers are already reduced to 18 and 110.)

Quit being a sore loser. Clinton had a majority of supporters on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (13) going into the negotiations. Obama had 8. And she still lost on every point. Just quit being a sore loser, you big baby.

She won't and shouldn't quit until there is a nominee who has secured the votes required.

If that happens on Tuesday - fine.

In fact, taking her proposals for MI would have set the stage for the most gracious exit from the campaign, because the votes would have been counted, democracy would have been respected and it would have been the most perfect possible message for party unity.

It would have allowed Clinton to back Obama with grace, passion and without losing face.

Now that he wiped his hungry ass with her and her supporters, i'm not so sure.

I, also, had thought that the 'cleanest' way to go about things might have been to give in to ALL her arguments so as to stop the protesting and simply quench all the arguments. But couple of problems with that, I think: (1) the perception it would have given to some that Clinton had great power within the party or was a better negotiator or what, (2) the - correct - perception it would have given to some that she was being patronized, and (3) delaying having a nominee. As it is (per my post up-thread) after these 3 contests he will need roughly 20 delegates to clinch and 112 to be 'challenge proof'. With the give-her-everything-she-wants resolution, he would have to get around 100 to clinch.

He could have and would have done it: the pool of superdelegates would be much larger and most 'uncommitted' would vote for him. But it would take longer for it all to work out and right now time is precious: they need to focus on the general election *and* every day HRC is in the race is another day that her negativity is poisoning the atmosphere and undercutting him (whether she means to or not - I don't think she can help herself, to be honest).

At least concerning Michigan, that was clearly one of the choices. The RBC could have simply held to the rules they set up in the first place and refused to seat any delegates. But they were looking for a compromise. Compromise: that's where everyone gets a little of what they want, but no one gets everything. As I said upthread, Brazile and Bonior both stated that Obama had the votes to get a 50/50 split of the Michigan delegates. Instead, he gave the majority to Clinton. He didn't have to. And the RBC (which had a Clinton majority) would have gone along with his demand.

You really need to get clear about what was happening yesterday. It was about reaching a compromise that gave everyone a little and gave no one too much. The RBC did an excellent job under extremely difficult circumstances.