::

For several weeks now, Hillary Clinton's only conceivable path to the nomination involved securing a favorable deal for seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. Now that John Edwards has endorsed Barack Obama, however, even that path has disappeared.

To understand why it has disappeared, let's take a step backward and review the situation. Clinton's goal is to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations according to the January primaries, with each delegate counting as one vote. If that happens, the biggest question will be what to do with the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates.

On election day, 40% of Michigan voters chose uncommitted. Of those, 77% favored Obama and 19% favored Edwards. Since virtually all uncommitted voters were either Obama or Edwards supporters, now that Edwards has endorsed Obama, there's really no fair argument to deny Obama those 55 delegates.

Consequently, even if Clinton secures a full recognition of the Michigan and Florida delegations, Barack Obama will receive 55 delegates from Michigan as well as Edwards' 13 delegates from Florida. Even if Obama didn't have those 68 delegates, the Michigan/Florida gambit probably wouldn't have been enough to give Clinton the nomination. But now he will have those delegates, effectively ending any chance Clinton has at the nomination -- even with the Michigan/Florida gambit.

For the full numbers, please see my post over at The Jed Report. (I cannot post images here.)

Here is a text description of the chart: The bottom-line of the numbers is that Obama will have 2,152 delegates on June 3 even without another superdelegate before then and Clinton will have 2,005. The goal being 2,210 (as set by Clinton) means that Obama will need just 22% (58) of the remaining delegates.

As you can see, there's nothing fancy with these numbers. The projections for the remaining five contests are conservative, giving Hillary Clinton a net gain of 5 delegates.

Still, even if with these conservative assumptions, when add up the total delegates for each candidate and you look at the delegates remaining, Barack Obama would need barely more than 1 in 5 delegates to officially nail down the nomination.

There's just no way Hillary Clinton will get 78% of the remaining delegates -- and that's what she needs under her best case scenario.

Even if Obama bleeds away a few Edwards delegates to Clinton (say 5), the numbers don't change significantly.

So yes, it's true: we can finally start waving goodbye to the nomination battle.

::

Cross-posted from The Jed Report.

As with Ohio, the results in Indiana are narrowing. Hillary Clinton now leads by just under 1.1% -- down from 1.4% on election night. It won't make a difference for the nomination battle, but it does strengthen the argument that were it not for McCain supporters, Hillary Clinton would not have won Indiana.

Let me run through numbers for you based on the new vote totals.

1. Hillary Clinton has 644,594 votes and Barack Obama has 630,599 votes
2. About 83,500 McCain supporters voted for Clinton
   
   • According to the exit poll, if Clinton were to win the nomination, 16% of primary voters would vote for McCain, 41% of whom voted for Clinton in the primary. As a result, 6.6% (16% * 41%) of Indiana primary voters voted for Clinton but plan to vote for McCain in the fall even if she wins the nomination
   • 6.6% of Indiana primary voters is 83,563. (13% of Clinton's total vote.)
3. About 27,500 McCain supporters voted for Obama
   • Also according to the exit poll, if Obama were to win the nomination, 18% of primary voters would vote for McCain, 12% of whom voted for Obama in the primary. As a result, 2.2% (18% * 12%) of Indiana primary voters voted for Obama but plan to vote for McCain in the fall even if he wins the nomination.
   • 2.2% of Indiana primary voters is 27,544. (4.4% of Obama's total vote.)
4. After factoring out the McCain supporters who voted for each candidate:
   • Clinton received 560,941 votes from sincere supporters (48.2% of the vote)
   • Obama received 603,055 votes from sincere supporters (51.8% of the vote)
5. Therefore, among voters who are not committed McCain supporters, Barack Obama won a 3.6 point victory, a swing of nearly 5 points from the current vote tally.

Keep in mind I'm not taking a position on why these McCain supporters voted for Clinton. It doesn't matter to me whether it was the Limbaugh Effect or whether they were honestly expressing their choice for second-place. What matters is they don't intend to vote for either Obama or Clinton in November, and I think any fair analysis of Indiana must factor these voters out of the equation.

As a postcript, what about North Carolina? Using the same method as above, 16% of Clinton voters in North Carolina were actually McCain supporters, compared with 3% of Obama supporters. Factoring out the McCain meddlers for both both candidates, overall Obama would have won 61%-39%, a 22-point win instead of 57%-42%, a 15-point win.

::

So how might these voters have impacted the demographics of the exit polls?

Without the cross-tabs, we can't be sure, but it's reasonable to estimate that that nearly all of these pro-McCain voters were white. After all, in 2004, 99% of Bush's support in Indiana was white. Assuming they are all white, then:

• 83,653 white Clinton voters were actually McCain backers
• 27,544 white Obama voters were actually McCain backers

Also from the exit poll, we know that:

• 596,790 Clinton voters were white (93% of her total)
   
• 397,860 Obama voters were white (63% of his total)

By subtracting the McCain backers from each candidate we learn that:

• 513,138 white Clinton voters were sincere
• 370,316 white Obama voters were sincere

Thus, excluding McCain meddlers, Clinton won among white voters 58% to 42%. That 16-point margin is significant, but it's also 4 points smaller than her 20-point 60%-40% lead when McCain meddlers are included.

Also, the 16-point margin is almost half that of the 30-point margin in Ohio, suggesting that the whole narrative about Obama losing support among whites is completely false. In fact, Obama is making significant progress.

The same pattern holds true in North Carolina. Including McCain meddlers, Clinton won by 24 points among white voters, 61%-37%. After excluding McCain meddlers, she still leads, but her margin shrinks to 18 points, 58%-40% -- also much closer than in Ohio.

Of course, since these numbers don't take gender into account -- Clinton's lead among white voters is attributable to white women -- it's questionable how meaningful they are. But given the Clinton campaign's obsession with Clinton's seemingly magical ability to win among white voters, it's useful to know what the real numbers are. And as these numbers show, the gap is closer than most people think -- and it seems to be closing as the campaign goes on.

::

::

For most of this campaign, the Democratic Party has been unified by optimism that our eventual nominee would trounce the Republican candidate in November, 2008. That began to change towards the end of February, when the contest between Senators Clinton and Obama began to turn sharply negative.

The media and the Clinton campaign deserve their share of blame for this. And Obama is not perfect, either. But the people who deserve the most blame are the superdelegates, for it is their indecision that has made this mess possible in the first place.

Since late February, it has been clear that the Clinton campaign's only hope for victory rested in their hands. Over the past two months, the sole uncertainty about the campaign has been whether or not superdelegates will stage a coup against the voters.

::

At any point during the last two months, superdelegates could have made it clear that they would support the will of voters. Instead, by declaring their indecision, they provided Clinton with a new rationale for her campaign. Effectively, they encouraged her coup attempt. It was if they said to her: if you can prove to us that Barack Obama is unelectable, we will overturn the judgment of voters.

It is now clear just how foolish and unwise the superdelegates were for offering Clinton such a destructive path to the nomination, for she has tried to meet it with unrestrained vigor. Two months later, a party that was once unified is now divided. The septuagenarian Republican presidential candidate who devised the Iraq war strategy and wants to stay there for one hundred years is leading or tied in most polls.

And the ultimate blame for making this possible rests with the very people who are supposed to lead the Democratic Party: the superdelegates.

::

It's important to remember the state of the campaign in late February. At that point, 70% of the pledged delegates had been chosen. Barack Obama had 1,210 pledged delegates and Clinton had 1,044, a lead of 166. It was clear that Obama's pledged delegate lead was insurmountable.

Now, after two months of nastiness on the campaign trail, voters have selected another another 573 pledged delegates, 20% of the total. With just 10% remaining, the pledged delegate margin is virtually identical heading into May as it was in late February: Obama leads by 161. (He has has 1,494 and Clinton has 1,333.)

(I focus on pledged delegates because they are the only way to to measure the will of voters. The "popular vote" is just as misleading the number of states won. Moreover, delegates select the nominee -- 2,024 of them, to be exact.)

The point is clear: Hillary Clinton took the superdelegates up on their irresponsible challenge and tried to prove that Obama is unelectable. Meanwhile, Obama could not respond as forcefully to Clinton as he would have to John McCain. He knew that unlike Clinton, he had to worry about unifying the party after her superdelegate gambit. He couldn't afford to attack her the way she attacked him.

Moreover, the media created a new Clinton-friendly narrative in order to support a continued campaign. Between Clinton's attacks, his measured response, and the media's pile-on, Obama endured his worst two-month stretch of the campaign so far. Making matters more difficult, the key primaries were on Hillary Clinton's home turf.

Yet through it all, Barack Obama won just five fewer delegates than Clinton. In short, nothing much changed. Hillary Clinton failed in her mission. And now, with just 408 delegates left to be chosen, the superdelegates remain sidelined. They remain the only uncertainty left in this campaign.

It is certain that Barack Obama will end up with a solid majority of pledged delegates. It is also certain that when the voting is done, he'll need just 30% of the undecided superdelegates to vote for him at the convention. And it's overwhelmingly likely that he will win those superdelegates.

Until the superdelegates formally make their views known, however, there will be uncertainty. And as long as that uncertainty remains, the media and the Clinton campaign will be able to exploit it -- further dividing the Democratic Party.

For two months, the superdelegates have had all the information they needed to make a decision. Yet they continue to dither about. The media and the Clinton campaign do deserve blame for exploiting the environment of uncertainty. But the environment was created by the superdelegates, and for that we have nobody to blame but the superdelegates themselves.

::

Cross-posted from The Jed Report.

::

As John McCain continues using guilt-by-association tactics to falsely portray his political opponent as a radical terrorist sympathizer, it's worth remembering that McCain himself has a little terrorism problem of his own.

In the early 1990s, McCain sided with right-wing domestic terrorists and voted against tough new legislation cracking down on a wave of anti-choice domestic terrorism targeting women who visited abortion clinics, their doctors, and clinic staff.

In both 1993 and 1994, McCain voted against the anti-terrorism measure. On each occasion, McCain was one of thirty radical anti-choice Senators to oppose the bill. Fortunately, despite McCain's opposition, it passed the Senate by a 69-30 margin.

At the time, right-wing anti-choice extremists were terrorizing women, doctors, and clinic staff across the United States with thousands of acts of physical violence and threats of violence each year. The new legislation was necessary because in early 1993, the Supreme Court had ruled that even though the terrorism crossed state lines, the federal government could not protect clinics without a specific grant of statutory authority.

After Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-choice terrorist outside the Pensacola Women's Medical Services clinic, Congress finally passed the much-needed legislation giving authorities the tool they needed to protect women, doctors, and clinic staff from the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Most Americans welcomed the new law -- even including far-right conservatives such as Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell. Nonetheless, John McCain stood by his extremist views and opposed the anti-terror bill.

McCain's radical position against the anti-terrorism legislation is clearly relevant in light of his recent attacks on his Democratic opponent. Although there is no indication that McCain himself supported any of the specific acts of domestic terrorism against women, their doctors, or clinic staff, radical anti-choice activists strongly supported his vote against the legislation, hoping to deprive the Federal government of an important legal tool for combating domestic terrorism.

Fortunately, moderate voices prevailed, and John McCain's dangerously tolerant attitude towards domestic terrorism against women, their doctors, and clinic staff was defeated.

::

McCain's reluctance to crack down on domestic terrorism against women, their doctors, and clinic staff illustrates his extremist views on reproductive freedom. Unfortunately, many women -- including an alarming number of his own supporters -- are unaware of just how radical McCain's positions are.

According to a March, 2008 survey of women in battleground states conducted for Planned Parenthood, half of women voters do not know whether McCain is pro-choice or anti-choice. Even more striking, 46% of women who support McCain want are pro-choice, and 36% of those pro-choice, pro-McCain women said they were less likely to vote for McCain once learning about his staunch anti-choice record.

Now that McCain has decided to make terrorism an issue in the campaign, voters deserve to know more about his decision to side with domestic terrorists and against women, their doctors, and clinic staff. In the process of telling that story, pro-choice Americans will learn more about his radical and extreme views on reproductive freedom -- and his strange tolerance of domestic terrorism.

::

(More at The Jed Report.)

::

There is no longer any question about whether or if Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. The question now is when and how he will be recognized as the party's presumptive nominee.

It will happen sometime before the Democratic National Convention, just as soon as he secures the 2,024 delegates it will take to win the nomination on the convention floor. When that moment is upon us, everything else that has happened in the campaign will be overshadowed, rendered moot in an instant.

Think of that moment like the final touchdown that puts away a football game for good. And in this football game, superdelegates control when and where that touchdown will occur. They have two options. They can try to score themselves, or they can hand the ball off to voters, and let the voters finish the game off.

Their decision won't change the outcome of the game. It will, however, change voter's perceptions about the winner of the game -- in this case, Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama is declared the presumptive nominee, it will be tremendously important that he be seen as having won on the strength of his electoral victories. To allow the formation of the unfair and absurd perception that an elite group of insiders handed him the nomination would be incredibly damaging to Democratic prospects in the fall.

::

Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a situation where superdelegates run the very real risk of letting that happen. If they don't act soon -- before May 20, as I will show -- they will give Obama's political opponents all the ammunition they need to develop such a crippling narrative.

Fortunately, there is simple way for superdelegates to avoid this outcome. How? Before May 20, 99 of the undeclared or Clinton supporting superdelegates must either endorse Barack Obama, or commit to supporting the winner of the pledged delegate battle (becoming members of the so-called "Pelosi Club").

Let me explain why May 20, the date of the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, is so crucial.

(By the way, everything in this post is moot if Barack Obama wins both North Carolina and Indiana on May 6 and Hillary Clinton withdraws from the race. But the superdelegates can’t control that, so from their perspective, they should still focus on May 20.)

May 20 is important because on that day Barack Obama will have finally surpassed the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates, securing himself a majority of the 3,253 democratically selected delegates headed to Denver. At that point, he will become the nominee unless there is a coup by superdelegates against the voters. It would be the perfect day for Obama to become the presumptive nominee.

Let’s take a closer look at the math of May 20:

• Conservatively, Obama will have 1,650 pledged delegates (likely more)
• Add in his 234 superdelegates (as of April 25) and he’ll have 1,884 total delegates
• Factor in the minimum 33 add-on delegates he is certain to get and he’ll have 1,917 total delegates

Now, remember it will take 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. Based on current superdelegate totals he will have at least 1,917 total delegates on May 20, a difference of 107 delegates.

That means that between now and May 20, if Barack Obama can secure support from 107 superdelegates, on May 20 he will have won the 2,024 delegates he needs to be officially declared the presumptive nominee, ending the nomination battle.

(Remember that after May 20, just over 100 pledged delegates will remain to be selected, meaning Obama would ultimately need just 40-45 more delegates to hit 2,024. Again, the question isn't whether or if Obama will win. The question is when and how he'll hit 2,024.)

The interesting twist is that to hit the 2,024 number is that on May 20, Barack Obama doesn’t actually need all those 107 superdelegates to endorse him. They can also declare their support for the “Pelosi standard,” meaning they will support the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether those superdelegates have endorsed Clinton or not – a vote is a vote.

In fact, at this point there are already 8 members of the “Pelosi club” – so Barack Obama actually only needs 99 more superdelegates to either endorse his campaign, or announce their support for the “Pelosi standard.” This should be doable -- we are talking about just over two-fifths of undeclared superdelegates.

(Remember these projections are conservative. In all likelihood, he won’t even need 99 superdelegates – given Obama’s likely performance in primaries between now and May 20, that number is more likely to be 89 or 90. 99, however, would be a guarantee.)

::

Why should these superdelegates either endorse Obama now or agree to the Pelosi standard?

The reason is simple and it is profoundly important: by making their decision before May 20, superdelegates will allow Barack Obama to clinch the nomination on the same day he secures a majority of pledged delegates.

In other words, it will be the voters of Oregon who actually push Barack Obama across the finish line. If the superdelegates wait until after May 20, insiders will be the ones who push Barack Obama across the line.

From the standpoint of who wins the nomination, it makes no difference. Obama has it wrapped up. But if superdelegates “score the final touchdown,” Barack Obama's political opponents will try to develop a narrative about Barack Obama's inability to win the nomination by himself, making it seem like the party leaders helped him achieve what he could do accomplish on his own. (That would be an asburd storyline to make about the guy who won a majority of pledged delegates, but since when has that been an obstacle?)

It should be obvious how destructive such a storyline would be for Barack Obama, and how Republicans would seek to take advantage of that perception. Just ask the North Carolina Republican Party.

If superdelegates really want to help Barack Obama, the best thing they can do is endorse him or the Pelosi standard now, or at least by May 20.

If 99 of them do it, the voters of Oregon will make Barack Obama the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party on May 20.

Allowing the voters to end this thing would be the best possible outcome, given the current state of the race.

Just about everybody wants this battle to come to an end, and there's no longer any uncertainty or doubt about its eventual outcome. One option is for superdelegates to pick the winner in June. The other option is to let voters end it on May 20. Either way, we’re going to have the same nominee.

For the sake of the party, let’s let the people of Oregon end this thing. Let's let there be a celebration at the conclusion of this campaign. Let’s put the voters first, and let's let the healing of the primary bruises begin.

::

Also at The Jed Report

Another observation, not directly related to the video, but connected to the general issue of honesty and trust:

Today's WaPo is out with results from a new poll confirming what we had hoped -- Clinton's "bitter" gambit boomeranged. In a companion article, the Post explores Clinton's growing honesty perception problem -- most voters don't think she's honest or trustworthy.

In that article, the most revealing passage was this one -- and it had nothing to do with the poll itself:

One Clinton insider announced in a strategy meeting it was ridiculous to have imagined the first lady ever having been in danger, or for Clinton to have thought she was -- a slap at the senator from New York that other advisers described as disrespectful.

That right there is the entire problem of the Clinton campaign. Saying something obviously true is considered a slap. In healthy organizations, telling the truth is rewarded; in dysfunctional ones, it's treated as disrespect and you get shunned.

We can't afford another President who won't let his or her staff speak truth to power.

That's the kind of organizational failure that gets us stuck in Iraq.

"Those of us who have tried to have a career, tried to have an independent life, certainly somebody like myself...you know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

Clinton's comments were indeed dismissive, but I understand where they were coming from. I was raised by a single mom (though I did spend time with my dad). Obviously, my mom worked for a living, and she raised me to be a feminist (I'm a guy who proudly accepts the label). And for ten years, I worked for a strong woman who is now a U.S. Senator. So I know where Hillary was coming from.

But that's not the issue. The issue is Hillary Clinton's utter hypocrisy -- and her utter "me-first" selfishness.

When Clinton made her comments, the conservative media trashed her harshly. Here's a relatively mild criticism from William Safire (the conservative former NYT columnist):

The cookies-and-tea stereotype is elitism in action. Even the columnist Ellen Goodman, a grass-roots feminist, was moved to comment: "Ouch."

My point isn't that I agree with William Safire. Rather, my point is that $109 million later, Hillary Clinton has become William Safire.

And now she is says Barack Obama as an elitist. Absurd.

Is there anything she will not say or do?

I've edited together the essence of her message. Even if you've seen her statement before, watch this clip -- it's short, and I promise it'll be worth your while.

There was no subtlety to her point: in her four minute long attack on Obama, Hillary Clinton used America (or one of its forms) 18 separate times. Compare that to primary night in New Hampshire, when in a twelve minute victory speech she used it just ten times.

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with using the word America in a political speech. But there is something wrong with using it as a political weapon.  And that's exactly what Hillary Clinton was doing today.

I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Sen. Obama made about people in small town America. Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans. Certainly not the Americans that I know — not the Americans I grew up with, not the Americans I lived with in Arkansas or represent in New York.

Hillary Clinton's meaning is clear: I'm more American than Barack Obama. In case there's any doubt, consider this statement in light of the fact that Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen (the elder Obama was in the United States on a student visa):

When my dad grew up it was in a working class family

And this:

I grew up in a churchgoing family

Doesn't it remind you of her "as far as I know moment?"

Is there anything she holds sacred?

About six weeks ago, Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of employing the worst quality of politics, reminiscent of Karl Rove. "Shame on you," she said.

No, Hillary. Shame on you.

If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.

I still believe it was at that moment that Hillary Clinton lost the campaign. As kos wrote at the time:

The closer we get to the primaries, the more Hillary will realize that she can't escape her Iraq dilemma. I don't want her to apologize. I want her to say, "I made a mistake." Edwards did it. Just about every other Democrat who idiotically trusted this president and supported the war has done it. Had Hillary done this last year, the issue would be moot.

Part of my goal in making this video is to try to express why Hillary Clinton is losing (or has lost, take your pick) this campaign, and also to express why Barack Obama is winning. It ends with these words from Obama:

It's important for us to stand our ground and take our licks, rather than what sometimes is our habit, which is to cave and whine about it afterwards, which makes us not only look weak, but petty.

Standing your ground isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. Obama is showed us that again yesterday. He's not perfect -- he's still a politician, after all. But he is showing Democrats how to be better, not just as politicians, but as leaders.

::

I also blog at The Jed Report.

I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.
-- Hillary Clinton, 4/5/08

Sure, that's a pretty crazy thing to say, but this being Clinton, there's some parsing involved. In her mind, anything that happened before January, 2005 doesn't count, because she and Barack Obama weren't both in the Senate.

Okay -- but as Jake Tapper documented, Clinton's story was flat-out false.

I did a bit of digging, found the video of Barack Obama on January 18, 2005 at Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearing. This is the Barack Obama we love -- intellectual and sincere, respectful but uncompromising. And criticizing the Iraq war as a U.S. Senator -- before Hillary Clinton.

Watch the video here. (I'd embed it here if I could, but I can't, so I posted it on my blog.)

As Tapper explained, the only evidence Clinton's folks could come up with to defend her claim was a written statement from January 26, 2008 -- eight days after Obama questioned Rice. Note that this was a statement for the record -- she didn't give it herself, and may never have seen it.

Meanwhile, a few weeks later, in February 2005, she was touring Iraq with BFF John McCain.

Clinton says insurgency is failing

BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.

When they returned from Iraq, Clinton and McCain made a joint appearance on Meet the Press. Not surprisingly, she was hardly critical of the war. Sorry, no video, but I've posted the full transcript of Iraq-related questions put to Clinton here.

I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.
-- Hillary Clinton, 4/5/08

Yes, that's a pretty crazy thing to say, but this being Clinton, there's some parsing involved. In her mind, anything that happened before January, 2005 doesn't count, because she and Barack Obama weren't both in the Senate.

Okay -- but as Jake Tapper documented, Clinton's story was flat-out false.

I did a bit of digging, found the video of Barack Obama on January 18, 2005 at Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearing. This is the Barack Obama we love -- intellectual and sincere, respectful but uncompromising. And criticizing the Iraq war as a U.S. Senator -- before Hillary Clinton.

Here's the video. (Since I can't embed video here, it's posted on my blog, along with what Clinton said on Saturday.)

As Tapper explained, the only evidence Clinton's folks could come up with to defend her claim was a written statement from January 26, 2008 -- eight days after Obama questioned Rice. Note that this was a statement for the record -- she didn't give it herself, and may never have seen it.

Meanwhile, a few weeks later, in February 2005, she was touring Iraq with BFF John McCain.

Clinton says insurgency is failing

BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.

When they returned from Iraq, Clinton and McCain made a joint appearance on Meet the Press. Not surprisingly, she was hardly critical of the war. Sorry, no video, but I've posted the full transcript of Iraq-related questions put to Clinton here.

• Hillary Clinton did not vet her story: The details strain credulity -- a hospital denying emergency care to a pregnant woman who didn't have $100 to her name? If warning bells weren't going off in her mind, they should have been. We don't need another president who doesn't check the facts.
• Hillary Clinton presented the imaginary elements of this story in vivid detail:  Even though she had not checked to see if the story was true, Hillary Clinton told the story as if she had been there herself. Perhaps she had -- in her own imagination.
• Hillary Clinton is a fabulist:  Tuzla. NAFTA. Superdelegates. Now this. All politicians stretch the truth from time to time -- yes, that includes not just McCain but also Obama -- but Clinton does it with a comfort that is terrifying.

This campaign, Clinton has embarrassed herself repeatedly with exaggerations and falsehoods. Voters don't trust her -- and she keeps on giving them good reason not to. Clinton says that she, not Obama, is the candidate who can beat John McCain. Actually, the opposite is true.

Clintons -- a last stand that lacks class

AS HER ham-handed handlers insult entire states, and her self-absorbed husband indulges in red-faced, finger-wagging outbursts, Sen. Hillary Clinton soldiers on.

It is a joyless campaign, with stump speeches that carry tales of woe and get delivered in a booming voice that could open a wall safe.

A full three months after the Iowa caucuses, nearly two months after Washington's caucuses, the Clintons seem bent on turning the Democrats' fertile ground into scorched earth.

It gets better from there -- including his Judas line. You can digg the article here -- this is a column people should read.

(For the sake of full disclosure, I should note that I've known Joel since 1994, when I was the Press Secretary for a U.S. Senate campaign that he was covering.)

To give you an idea of how good a reporter Joel is, this past January a few days before the Nevada caucuses, I went to go see John Edwards at a town hall event -- and Joel was at the event. Keep in mind Joel is a Seattle-based reporter and he was doing a more thorough job than many DC-based reporters, most of whom pretended that John Edwards didn't even exist.

We'd be better off with more scribes like him.

Today's headline in the WaPo:

Clinton Vows To Stay in Race To Convention.

It was a beautiful thing to see -- because the moment a presidential candidate is forced to vow that he or she isn't quitting, you know they are toast.

Examples from recent history:

Feb 5: Romney Vows to Stay in GOP Race

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pledged to fight all the way to the Republican nominating convention this summer if necessary, despite being overpowered by John McCain in Super Tuesday contests.

Feb 4: Huckabee vows to stay in race

WASHINGTON -- Mike Huckabee hasn't won a Republican presidential contest in a month. The result: money is tighter, his staff is smaller and he can't seem to get the attention he once did. Still, he says he's sticking around for the long haul -- well past Tuesday's coast-to-coast primaries and caucuses if need be.

Jan 24: Giuliani Vows to Stay in the Race

BOCA RATON, Fla. – Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has staked his candidacy on the Florida primary only to see his standing in statewide polls slip, said here Thursday afternoon that he would stay in the race even if he loses on Jan. 29.

Jan 6: Edwards vows to stay in race to convention

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democrat John Edwards said Sunday he will stay in the presidential race through the party's convention in late August, even if he fails to win any of the early presidential primary states. "This is the call of my life, and I have no intention of stopping," Edwards said on ABC's This Week. "I'm in this through the convention and to the White House." Asked specifically if he'd remain a candidate even if he failed to garner a win over the next month, Edwards said, "Absolutely."