On Wednesday Hillary Clinton said on CNN that "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." My initial reaction to that statement was "What?! You did?! Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this?"

Some things just don't pass the smell test from the first minute and this claim stinks badly.  But forget my opinion, listen to the people involved in the peace process like Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey who was quoted in the Daily Telegraph:

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

Even more damaging for Clinton, the article says:

Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. "She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already," he said. Mrs Clinton was "a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument", he added.

Hillary wants to claim her husband's accomplishments as her own and this is a classic example of the dangers for those claims. She has 7 years as an elected official (in the US Senate) and Obama has 11 (3 in the US Senate and 8 as a state senator). Her experience claims are weak.

This is the type of issue that will get her in serious trouble in the general election too. It's the kind of resume exageration that the average person will see as a sign of untrustworthiness.

As has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed on TPM cafe, it's all about the delegate and superdelegate math now. Hillary simply won't catch Obama in the race for pledged delegates, even if there's a re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

So it's very likely that the superdelegates are going to end the primary - either early or at the convention. As has been noted by several TPMers, Hillary needs to get supers to endorse her at a rate of about 2.5:1 in order to catch Obama. And for every new Obama endorsement, that means Hillary has to pick up an additional 2+ superdelegates to make up the difference.    

What's happened in the first 6 days of March? According to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ Obama has picked up 11 new superdelegate endorsements to Clinton's 1. Here's their breakdown:

3-1-08 - Added DNC Joe Wineke (WI) for Obama. Added Stewart Burkhalter (AL) as new add-on superdelegate for Obama.
3-4-08 - Added DNC Carol Fowler (SC) , DNC Mary Long (GA) , DNC Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX) for Obama
3-5-08 - Added DNC Rhine McLin (OH) , DNC Jane Kidd (GA) and DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL) for Obama
3-6-08 - Added DNC Connie Thurman (IN) for Obama.
- Added Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) for Clinton.
- Added Rep. Nick Rahall (WV) for Obama
- Added DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV) for Obama

Note that since Tuesday's vote, Hillary is losing the SD count 6:1. She's got to turn this around or it is going to be over very soon. Some people have noted that superdelegates supporting Obama could switch to Hillary but this isn't very realistic. I don't know of one case of an Obama SD switching to Clinton. It's just not likely to happen if it doesn't happen right now because the calendar is going to continue to give Obama good news, be it fundraising, or a win in Mississippi next week (and a win in North Carolina just 2 weeks after the PA vote).  

It's worth noting that the net gain of ten superdelegates this week means that he has erased or overcome Hillary's likely pledged delegate pickup this month (still unclear but probably between 4-11).  

Here's what I think you should look for in about one week.  Obama is likely to have a huge victory next Tuesday in Mississippi and probably will win in Wyoming on Saturday. After he gets the momentum back and the MSM starts talking more seriously about the delegate math, I think there will be an opening for the superdelegates to end this.

Maybe they won't, maybe they believe that Hillary should get another firewall in PA.  But I don't think they'll have the patience IF they do the math, IF they think that Obama's lead is insurmountable, and IF they don't like the harsh campaign tactics and messages coming from the Clinton campaign. 

And yes, idiotic, let me save you the trouble to say that THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!

As FlyOnTheWall would say, if you liked this post please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' button. and please check out my TPM blog.

I was going to write something serious here to address the nonsense that's coming out of the Clinton campaign these days - and which has spread to some of her supporters on the "series of tubes".  

I was going to write again about the near impossible delegate math that Clinton faces now. I was going to debunk this "big state" mantra that her campaign keeps going on about. I was going to address the fact that Hillary was completely fine with FL and MI being stripped of delegates back when voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (and the DNC) asked about her position. I was going to address how the GOP and McCain will use Hillary's own words and speeches to defeat her if she is the nominee.  

But it comes down to this. What are Hillary's chances of winning the nomination right now? This clip of the movie "Dumb and Dumber"about sums it all up.

For those that think yesterday was a big win for Hillary, the Obama campaign spelled it out today:

"the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone."

So you're saying there's a chance? Sure, one in a million.

Sorry for the snarkiness- I'm ready to focus on McSame.

Can anyone find quotes from Hillary (or to a lesser degree from her campaign or surrogates) in which they harshly rebuke FL or MI for moving up their primaries? Or better yet, agree that the penalty imposed on those states is just. 

I'm wondering if there's a quote out there on the "internets" that is a very direct flip-flop on the Clinton campaign's current position that says those states should be seated.

On September 1, the Clinton campaign sent out this statement when agreeing to the no-campaign pledge in FL and MI:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

And on Feb. 22, Clinton said this according to CNN:

Clinton told Smith that she had promised not to campaign in either state, and had kept her word – but that she had never said she would not ask for the results of those contests to be made official, a request her campaign made public on the eve of Florida’s January vote.

And this seems to be a place where the campaign might be caught in a flip-flop.

Anyone have anything? 

Was this a topic in New Hampshire or Iowa with voters? Were Hillary or her campaign people quoted in the Iowa or NH media on this?

Or is what Hillary is saying accurate technically?

Obama:

...Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin today announced her endorsement of Illinois Senator Barack Obama...

Spotted this at Politico first. Rhine is a member of the DNC from Ohio. 

We could see a trickle of SDs becoming a flood for Obama, especially if the SDs believe two things:
- The person with the most pledged delegates should be the nominee and there is no mathmatical way that Hillary can catch Obama
- A continued Democratic primary only hurts the nominee at this point.

If that becomes the talk behind the scenes, then this will be over before Pennsylvania. The other thing to remember is that for every new SD that Obama picks up, Clinton will have to match it with at least 2-3 if she's going to overtake him. More breakdown and analysis here on the delegate math.

I think Hillary Clinton has her opening to win the nomination, but things have to happen quickly. 

Here's what she needs:
- Continued and sustained positive press
- Dozens and dozens of superdelegates endorsing her
- Win in Wyoming on Saturday, do surprisingly well in Mississippi on Tuesday

Why? She has a window here to look like the winner and American voters love themselves a winner - they also love comeback stories. 

But...the narrative is likely to quickly change. Many prognosticators believe that Obama will win Wyoming's caucus, just as he has in similar states. And I don't think anyone believes that Mississippi will be anything but a blowout for Obama. 

So...Obama is likely to grab the headlines back within a week and then we're going to see the superdelegates do the same math we've all been doing on the delegate count. 

Then the question will be: will superdelegates flock to Obama or Clinton after it becomes clear that there is no way Clinton will be near Obama's pledged delegate count. (a few weeks ago the story I was hearing in the MSM was that there was a general feeling that Clinton needed to be within 20-30 delegates in order for superdelegates to feel ok about crossing over to the candidate with the fewer total delegates).  

So it comes down to this for Hillary: The Superdelegates are Clinton's only mathematical hope for victory (even if she wins Penn, FL, and MI primaries with 10% victories). Will the remaining SDs  flock to Hillary even if she's behind by over 100 pledged delegates? 

I think we get back to the math. (damned numbers) - of the remaining 350 (roughly) superdelegates they'd have to go to Hillary something like this: 250:100.   

I don't think this is realistic. But watch the unpledged superdelegates in the next two weeks - that will decide this nomination. 

...and loses Vermont by 10%. Probably a scenario that any Clinton supporter would take right now with open arms.

Recent polls seem to indicate some strong movement for her in Ohio and possibly bouncing back into the lead in Texas, so this all sounds at least plausible. I don't think it's going to get much better than this for Clinton on Tuesday. 

But does this get her back in contention for the delegate lead? Not even close.

Let's do some back of the envelope math for the delegate count (for this quick overview, a candidate gains delegates based on the percent of victory, giving Hillary even better numbers on delegates than is likely):
OH: Hillary gains 15 delegates
TX: Hillary gains 8 delegates
RI: Hillary gains 6 delegates
VT: Obama gains 3 delegates

Hillary picks up 26 delegates. Currently, Obama has a 105 delegate lead, superdelegates included.  (and you can also see here why an Obama victory in Texas would destroy any chance for Hillary. If Obama gets just a 5 delegate victory in TX, Hillary would only gain 13 delegates in this scenario.)

105 - 26 = Obama delegate lead of 79. (probably a best case scenario for Hillary).

Up next: Wyoming (18 delegates) and Mississippi (40).  A conservative estimate would give Obama a pickup of 2 in Wyoming (with 55%) and 10 in Mississippi (63%).

79 + 12 = Obama delegate lead of 91. (note that the net change since before March 4th is only 14)

Now after this there is the long wait (over a month) until Pennsylvania.  I don't see any way that superdelegates allow this to go on this long - but perhaps they will continue to sit it out. 

Even if Hillary were to have a strong showing in Pennsylvania, let's say a 55% - 45% victory, it would only amount to a gain of 20 delegates. Obama would very likely get all those delegates back just a couple weeks later in North Carolina with it's 134 delegates and nearly 40% African-American Democratic voters.

So I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said, but I wanted to write this out for myself. Basically, while Hillary's campaign might celebrate 3 victories in the nomination battle on Tuesday night, they appear to have already likely lost the war.  

I've asked this question in a couple of different posts over the past week. Not one person has been able to spell out a scenario in which Hillary wins the nomination, be it by delegate math or some narrative of the campaign. 

I posted this week on a possible scenario in which Obama wins the nomination.  No one gave any prediction or idea for a Clinton nomination. 

The closest thing to someone telling me how Clinton will win the nomination is from a recent TPM reader's post that said that Obama should drop out if he doesn't win Texas and Ohio (because apparently it would be too humiliating to lose those states and stay in the race, even if you have the overall delegate and vote lead?).

For reasons that are obvious, Obama is not dropping out after Tuesday. So please, in all seriousness, can someone tell me how Hillary wins the nomination at this point?

Two big things out today.  First, the New York Times reported the following regarding Bill Richardon:

Mr. Richardson, saying that it was vital to Democrats’ hopes in the general election in November to mount a positive, unifying campaign, said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” that “whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee.”

For that to be Mrs. Clinton, she would have to significantly exceed the results predicted by polls.

That seems to be as close to supporting Obama as he can get right now since I don't hear anyone, even from the Hilalry camp, who believes she'll be much closer or ahead after Tuesday. It seems like a kind of public warning on the reason he's likely to support Obama.

The second big news comes out of Florida:

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Florida Governor Charlie Crist said he'd support a repeat of the Democratic presidential primary so the state's delegates can be counted at the party's national convention.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he's open to the possibility. Primary elections are paid for by a state's taxpayers, so the offer from Crist, a Republican, is ``very helpful'' because money is an issue, Dean said.

``We're very willing to listen to the people of Florida,'' Dean said on CNN's ``Late Edition'' program today.

While the Richardson news is bad for Hillary, this could give her a new firewall. Now it is interesting to note that Crist is a Republican and a talked about VP nominee for McCain.  I'm wondering if this is a sign that the GOP wants to try to help Hillary - who's the only candidate who could benefit from a second primary. Could it be a sign that he's received lot's a public pressure? Or that he just thinks FL voters should have their say? 

I still don't think that she's going to be able to make up the delegate ground unless she wins both TX and OH and then were to win big in FL and MI. Even then, with only two of them the delegates are going to be allocated so evenly that her comeback is a longshot. 

I think the only way any of this matters if she wins both OH and TX next week. If she loses one, then I think dozens more superdelegates join Bill Richardson and endorse Obama within a week.  Coupled with big Obama wins in Wyoming and Mississippi - it should be over in 10 days or less barring a big Hillary win Tuesday.  

New article out from Reuters on some possible VP picks for McCain.  The article focused on McCain's age - that at 71 he's the oldest non-incumbent to run in the general election. Then the article gets into some possible McCain VP picks:

Brinkley said the most reassuring person McCain could pick in the Republican Party would be retired Gen. Colin Powell, a former secretary of state and defense. Powell, 70, has said he does not want the job but Brinkley said Republican Party elders might be able to persuade him.

"Powell is someone everyone could imagine as president," Brinkley said.

Two possibilities include Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, 51, who could help McCain win the battleground state of Florida in the November election, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 47, who could do the same in Minnesota.

There are plenty of other names: Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who says she does not want it; South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour; Texas Gov. Rick Perry; and former White House budget director Rob Portman, a former member of the U.S. Congress from Ohio.

I don't think there's any way that Powell would get on the GOP ticket because he seems to be fairly disenchanted with this war and the neo-cons. I think he stays completely out of the picture in the election. I don't think Graham makes sense, another old white male Senatorfrom an already strong red state. Portman, while from Ohio, isn't that well known outside of Cincinnati since he was only a member of the House. His strong connections to the White House could further tie McCain to the worst President ever.    

Of the rest, I think I'd bet first on Pawlenty, then Hutchinson, and Crist. Perry and Barbour would be a second tier of choices.  

Three questions:
- Who are the other likely Vp picks for McCain?
- If you were McCain, who would you choose and why?
- What can TPM readers tell us about these candidates? (i.e. I don't know much about Pawlenty or Crist. Anyone from Minnesota or Florida want to weigh in?)