A team from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" came to Hillary's speech last night. None too happy that this primary is over, they were chanting:

"Four more months! Four more months!"

Obama will have a significant advantage over McCain with the media going forward to November and beyond, for one simple reason: he is good for their business. His electric popularity with the favored advertising demographic, ages 18 to 39, will encourage favorable treatment. Not that the media would ever slant their coverage for financial gain...

A post earlier today (by the same title as this one) referenced a comment I made a couple of days ago in a thread, which comment was, “Very little depends on how we characterize Clinton supporters on this site.” I am channeling Obama’s experience after his “bitter” comment – I feel his pain!

And as with Obama’s “bitter” comment, mine was used as an example a bit out of context, and yet does reflect some beliefs that may be at odds with what some others believe. So here comes the dull recitation of what I meant, and what I believe, strictly for those who don’t have much to do on this Monday evening.

First, my comment was in the midst of a discussion about how the Democratic party can achieve unity. More on that in a moment. I agree with Ben’s main point that civility is important – I believe it is vital in interpersonal relationships, be they intimate, close, casual, or electronic relationships. I take civility for granted for myself and those I know. Meanness, or beyond that, verbal violence, is above all selfish and destructive. On TPM, I most enjoy and resonate with those comments that are civil, friendly, and thoughtful; and I enjoy about this site that kindness seems to be the predominant culture. It is all too rare in media these days – so much media is filled with hate filled speech, it really is awful.

So a separate paragraph for my main message: TPM is a site dominated by thoughtful, kind people, and I celebrate that.

On to Democratic party unity. There has been puzzlement in the media about why this Democratic primary has been so divisive, has caused so much anger on both sides, when the two candidates are so close ideologically. This next will sound like yet more Hillary bashing, but it is not, it is a carefully considered opinion: IMHO, much of the responsibility for the divisiveness lies with Hillary Clinton. Imagine the different tone this campaign would have had if we had heard something like these quotes from her:

“Reverend Wright is over the line, but I can understand the anger he is expressing, the anger that black Americans feel.”

“ Obama Muslim? That is straight from Karl Rove and his gang. I have great respect for Islam, but the simple fact is that Obama is a Christian. He goes to church more than I do.”

“I do not want any votes from Republicans who are just looking to create chaos in our primary. To you Limbaugh fans, please just stay home.”

“I welcome the votes of all Americans. However, it gives me pause to hear that there are racists supporting me simply in order to vote against Obama. That is a morally wrong reason to cast a vote.”

Dream on, right?

Clinton did not show class and moral behavior during the final months of this campaign, she showed the opposite. The thing is, the act of lying corrupts; and when a powerful politician lies and cheats, repeatedly, it corrupts many people, both in her inner circle, as well as among her supporters. Donna Brazile was a breath of fresh air Saturday at the RBC – finally she said: it is wrong to lie, it is wrong to cheat, it is wrong to try to change the rules after the fact to the set of rules that happens to hand you a victory…

I do not believe that McAuliffe, Ickes and the rest are evil people – I don’t even think they are basically corrupt. The legions of people at the meeting Saturday who were screaming at each other – I do not believe that most of them are fundamentally rageful people.

It is Hillary Clinton (again IMHO) who has brought so many people to this anger; and to finally get around to my point, it is only Hillary Clinton who can bring unity back to the Democratic party, by giving up the biggest lie she has been living for almost two months: That she has any chance of winning this primary. When she concedes gracefully (which many indicators now suggest will happen soon), the lie will be over, her inner circle can stop trying to defend the indefensible, her supporters can finally admit the obvious truth that Obama has won. Then we can all take a deep breath, give ourselves a large group hug, and start working toward November, to put Obama in the White House, and a huge Democratic progressive majority in Congress.

To those who have made it to the end of this post, thanks for your time, I do appreciate it. Ben, you started a great conversation, and I’m happy to have had a part in it.

This week, Senator Obama will secure an absolute majority of the Democratic delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination for President. Hillary Clinton will persist, for an unclear period of time, in urging the superdelegates to overturn the will of the pledged delegates, and nominate her, using two chief arguments: first, that she is more “electable” than Obama, and second, that she has won the “popular vote”, according to whatever metric she can find that supports her claim. The following are some of the flaws in her arguments.

 

“Electability”

 

1) The Democratic primary voters have the right to choose whomever we feel would be the best president, be it the candidate most likely to be elected, least likely to be elected, or anyone in between.

 

2) It is folly to try to guess which candidate is the most electable 5 months before the election. Polls are often unreliable, and change constantly in the months before an election. Hillary was way ahead of the other candidates 5 months before primary voting started in January, and she ended up losing popularity and losing the election. In addition, in polls for the GE, Obama and Clinton are close to even, in spite of Clinton’s repeated claims otherwise.

 

3) Obama is an articulate, charismatic politician with a compelling message. To declare Hillary more “electable” 5 months ahead of the election ignores the probability that his popularity will continue to grow, as it has since last fall.

 

“Popular vote”

 

1) The winner is the candidate with the most delegates. All campaigns knew the rules from the start. Overall popular vote plays no role in determining the primary winner and never has, in the Democratic party.

 

2) Popular vote is meaningless in a primary with so many caucus states. To group the thousands of voters in caucuses with the hundreds of thousands of voters in primary states diminishes the influence of those caucus states to a negligible amount. If states had known beforehand that popular votes would be the determining criterion, all states would have held elections rather than caucuses.

 

3) All candidates designed their campaign strategies to win the most delegates. If the candidates had known in advance that the overall popular vote would matter, they would have run very different campaigns (including Clinton). To try to change the rules after the election makes it appear that Clinton is just fishing around for whatever metric she can find to declare victory. It distorts the outcome because the other candidates have not had the opportunity to present their cases in an optimal way to win the overall popular vote.

 

4) Voters made their decisions about whether or not to vote, and whom to vote for, based on the rules of state-by-state delegate selection. If voters had known that the overall popular vote mattered, some might have voted differently, or might have made a different choice about whether or not to vote. Changing the rules after the election is unfair to voters.

 

5) In some states, cynical Republican voters crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary for Clinton, to cause more “chaos” in the Democratic primary. Rush Limbaugh claimed responsibility for 100,000 such voters in Texas alone, probably an exaggeration. But again, if candidates knew the overall popular voter at the beginning, they might have closed primaries to all but Democrats, or taken other steps to make sure the popular vote was legitimate.

 

Clinton has essentially conducted a disinformation campaign in the past month to try to focus public and media attention on the specious arguments of “eletcability” and “overall popular vote”. In the meantime she has continued to undermine Obama. It is time for her to concede this election.

M: “Thank you both for joining us today. Hillary, can you describe your campaign strategy?”

Hillary: “Well, M, ever since early February, our strategy has been to change the rules of the Democratic primary in any way necessary in order to win the nomination.”

M: “How are you doing that?”

Hillary: “The important thing is to some how increase the perceived value of states I’ve won, and devalue those Barak has won. We started by repeatedly pointing out that I have won almost all the large swing states. That didn’t get much traction, but Bill thought of a better argument.”

Bill: “Yeah, we discovered that the states Hill won have more electoral votes than the ones Barak has won. I thought that would be a killer argument, but somehow that didn’t get much traction either.”

Hillary: “One thing has caught on: we have gotten people to focus on electability - we  talk about that every day, how I'm more electable than Barak, and can you believe it, no one from Barak’s campaign says a word, never claims Barak is more electable! Unfortunately we are still losing supers every day. Bill thought up a new idea about caucuses.”

Bill: “Yeah, this is how we're trying to devalue Barak’s states: see, most of them have been caucus states. It occurred to me, instead of focusing on people who voted, why don’t we focus on the people who didn’t vote, and sort of imply they would have voted for Hill! And say that caucuses disenfranchise all those people who didn't vote!”

M: “Has that worked?”

Bill: “Too early to tell.”

M: “What about Florida and Michigan?”

Hillary: “Now that’s a tough issue. Last summer, I was sure I was going to be President, and I wanted to be able to control the primary schedule in 2012. So, we had to penalize Florida and Michigan. Now we are losing, so of course we have to reverse strategy, and fight to get the Florida and Michigan delegations seated.”

M: “Do you think you will prevail this Saturday at the Rules Committee meeting?”

Bill: “That would be a disaster. If we win, we have no justification to fight on. Best could happen is a compromise that we don’t agree to. Then we get a few more delegates, plus we can keep fighting on until the convention, arguing voting rights, disenfranchisement, and the like.”

M: “Hillary, if Obama is nominated, will you eventually support his candidacy?

Hillary: “Never. This is my year. I have worked for this all my life. I put up with 8 years of shenanigans in the White House from you-know-who. I’ve put in 8 long years in the Senate, behaving myself in that men’s club, paying my dues, going around the country to raise money for every Democrat and his brother. I am 60 years old, Barak is, what, 40? He has lots of time, he should have held back. He should never have challenged me. If I don’t win the nomination, McCain will be elected and I will run in 2012, and win. Remember, the last time the Democrats renominated a losing presidential candidate was Adlai Stevenson in 1956, and he lost worse the second time than he did the first.”

M: “What if Obama wins the Presidency this year?”

Bill: “Not going to happen. We will keep undercutting him all the way to the convention. When we are done with him, he will be lucky to be reelected Senator from Illinois. Meanwhile we keep making “peace overtures” to the Obama campaign. They are a trusting bunch of people, they believe it every time. Keeps them off guard. We turn right around and undercut him some more. It’s Hillary or McCain this year, that’s all there is to it.”

M: “Thank you both for your candor, and best of luck.”

Is there an uncommitted superdelegate among your elected officials (representative, senator, or other party leader)? I just emailed the following to mine:


"Dear Mr. Van Hollen,


The date that each superdelegate endorses Senator Obama will become part of that individual's political legacy. Like the vote authorizing (or not) the Iraq war, it is a date that may carry political consequences in Democratic circles for years to come.

Was the timing courageous? Did he/she wait too long, contributing to irreperable harm for the Democratic party?

Hillary Clinton continues to offer self-serving, distorted analysis of election results, for example by suggesting that only delegates "earned in primaries" be considered, ignoring caucus results. When will YOU act to help end this primary?

What will be your date, Mr. Van Hollen?

(signed)"


The most effective way to help insure Obama's nomination, and help combat the disinformation assault from the Clinton campaign, is to keep up the pressure on superdelegates to act now to end this primary.

Just a suggestion.

Speaking Tuesday night in Montana, Hillary again averred that she is the stronger candidate against McCain "based on every analysis of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken...". This was reported on CNN's Political Ticker, immediately next to a story that CNN latest poll of polls shows both Obama and Clinton beating McCain 46% to 44%. Clinton is not looking at any analysis, research, or poll: she is lying.
Today, two Clinton supporters, Governor Rendell of PA and Governor Paterson of NY also both gave interviews in which they lamented that Clinton would be the stronger candidate, though they expect Obama to win the nomination. One can assume that the Clintons are recruiting others to participate in spreading this oft-repeated lie.
It is not helping Obama or the Democrats to have Clinton and others continue to repeat this claim about Clinton's supposed superior electability. There are so many fallacies with the claim, one hardly knows where to begin: 5 months before the election, polls are next to useless; Obama is a compelling and charismatic candidate, and has an excellent chance of opening a wide gap over McCain; Hillary was way ahead in the Democratic primary polls 5 months before they began, and dropped like a stone - couldn't it happen to her again?; the Republicans have not even begun to focus their attack machine on her - on the contrary, they have been supporting her candidacy as the preferable opponent in November.
Most of all, Clinton's claim is false. National polls show Obama doing as well as Clinton, or better. The oft-repeated lie she is peddling is a selfish attempt to sway superdelegate votes. The problem is that the oft-repeated lie can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clinton is making Obama's task of defining himself all the more difficult. Some in her campaign have claimed that when the primary is over, she will support and help the nominee. With help like this, who needs Republicans?

If you support Obama, and you are feeling complacent about his chances to win the Democratic nomination, read Roland Martin's post at CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/roland.martin/index.html

No one really knows what Hillary (and Bill) will do after June 3. You can help Obama by contacting uncommitted delegates and urging them to definitively shut down this primary election after June 3. Check your Representative and your two Senators, and contact any that are uncommitted. Check for other uncommitted party officials in your electoral area. For good measure, contact Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Gore.
The primary contest is not over.

Today, Bill Clinton claimed there has been a "cover-up" of Hillary's chance of winning key states in November, and claims that "she is winning the general election today, and he is not, according to all the evidence." (Quote from CNN.com)
At RealClearPolitics.com, on just the first page of their "latest polls" page, four national polls are shown comparing Obama and Clinton running against McCain. Two show Obama doing better than Clinton, by 6% and 10% respectively, and two show Clinton doing better by 2% and 4% respectively. What "evidence" is Bill talking about? 
And how much do polls mean 5 months before an election? Someone should remind Bill that 5 months before the Democratic primary, Hillary was far ahead in all polls and was considered the presumptive nominee. What happened to her, and couldn't the same thing happen to her again?
Bill argues that because Hillary defeated Obama in several large swing states, Obama would lose those states in November. Polls listed at the above web site in the past three days show Obama winning in PA, OH and CA. Obviously most Democrats will line up behind Obama in the general election. Five months is a long time for this charismatic, articulate man to win the hearts and minds of voters, even those blue collar Appalachian whites of whose support Hillary brags. 
This primary is not over. Whatever the decision of the Credentials Committee next Saturday about the delegations from FL and MI, Hillary can appeal to the Rules Committee that meets at the end of June. The Rules Committee comprises at least 50% her supporters.
Bill is laying the groundwork for continuing Hillary's campaign to the convention by claiming that "It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully these superdelegates to come out". Superdelegates are not pledged; they can change their endorsement any time up until they cast their votes at the convention. Even if a large number of uncommitteds endorse Obama in the next two weeks, the Clintons will claim that these superdelegates were "bullied", and will argue that they should have time to change their minds (i.e., until the convention in August). They will argue that there should be no rush to judgement, it is good for the party for the supers to have time to think it all over. Meanwhile they will continue to agitate over the FL and MI issue, citing voting rights, Zimbabwe, slavery, as they have already done.
It is getting harder to imagine that Hillary Clinton will ever concede this nomination. Only forceful action by the party leadership and the superdelegates can end this destructive tragedy of the unmaking of Hillary Clinton.

Obama has been careful not to criticize Clinton, wisely, in order not to feed her claim to victimhood.
But late Saturday, he finally stated the obvious about Florida and Michigan. In an interview on his campaign plane, he accused Clinton of stoking anger in those states over the delegate mess. Then he said, "They [the Clinton campaign] weren't stirring it up when they didn't need the delegates... Let's not sort of pretend that we don't know what is going on."
"Sort of pretending" is exactly what Clinton's campaign has become. Has any interviewer asked her, point blank, why she supported stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates last fall? What is worse, she frames the issue in ever more powerful (and inappropriate) terms: invoking voting rights, Zimbabwe, the 2000 election of George Bush, and most recently (and most offensively), slavery.
One year ago, Clinton looked like a superb candidate. There was appropriate excitement in Democratic circles about an HRC Presidency. But in the past few months, her campaign has sunk ever deeper into moral bankruptcy. It is a sad spectacle.

When Hillary finally concedes the primary election, the Obama campaign will turn a laser-like focus to a single goal: getting Obama elected in November. If cold political calculation suggests that Clinton as VP would give him the most help, she will be chosen. No one - least of all in anyone in the Obama campaign - will suggest that any grudges from the primary season should stand in the way of maximizing Obama's chance of electoral success. The question, then, is whether she would be the VP candidate who would most help Obama.
Clinton's strongest positive is her talent for campaigning, particularly for her ability to counterattack. She could be the person to answer the Republican attack machine as it turns on Obama. One can imagine a campaign where Clinton and McCain engage in ever more vicious attacks and counterattacks, while Obama can stay above the fray, acting Presidential, promising (and delivering) a new kind of politics. Hillary is doubtless capable of truly knocking old man McCain completely off his bearings.
Clinton's negatives include her strong negative ratings with many voters, the baggage she carries from the past two decades in politics, and her unpredictable spouse.
Also, it is said that the one function a VP candidate serves, in the end, is to deliver her/his state for the ticket. NY is safely Democratic, so other candidates offer more to Obama in this regard.
However, considering how negative Presidential campaigns have become, Hillary's talent at attacking ruthlessly may end up being the determining factor for Obama campaign strategists.

Thus far, neither Hillary nor her campaign have been able to offer any reasonable explanation for her mentioning Robert Kennedy's assassination during a discussion of her reasons for continuing her campaign in the face of impossible mathematical odds.
The inescapable conclusion is that she is unwilling or unable to tell us what she is really thinking, consciously or unconsciously: that her only hope for winning the Democratic nomination is if Obama were suddenly no longer in the race. And that somewhere in her mind, she fantasizes that possibility, and wishes to be poised to step in as the presumed nominee if her fantasy becomes reality.
We now have the answer to the question, "Why does she keep going?" It is not to keep fighting for blue collar workers, older women, or whomever, as though Obama could not fight for these people; he has been fighting for them all his life. It is not because she has any hope of winning enough superdelegates to take the nomination. Not even because she really thinks she is more electable. Rather, she keeps going because she hopes that fate will hand her the Presidency that she has been unable to win democratically.
The only thing more offensive than her cruel, delusional thinking is her denial of it. Her campaign goes on the attack, calling criticism of her assassination comment "offensive". No, Hillary, it the comment itself, and the thinking behind it, that is offensive. 
What more will it take for the superdelegates to end this primary race? How much more offensive behavior are they going to tolerate? If the Democratic party ends up mortally wounded by November, Hillary will only be partly to blame: the "superdelegates", who could have ended this 2 months ago, will bear great responsibility for the debacle.

It seems that each week, the moral bankruptcy of Clinton's campaign reaches new levels. She boasts about winning the votes of racists, as though these voters have more value than those who support Obama. She suggests that the Democratic party should appease racists by nominating a white candidate who can win their votes. Why does she assume that Obama might not win over some or many of these voters over the next 5 months?Now she has quoted Karl Rove's analysis that she would be the stronger candidate in November, as though Karl Rove should help select the Democratic nominee. And since when is the "strongest nominee" the sole qualification for representing the Democratic party?The lies from Clinton and her campaign continue to multiply. She claims to be the victim of sexism, and in the same interview has the gall to suggest that racism has played no part in this campaign, contrary to what is suggested by dozens of polls. She claims to be ahead in the popular vote, in spite of the fact she trails in any reasonable tally of same. She claims to continue her campaign in order to fight for blue collar workers, older women, whomever, as though Obama could not fight for these people (he has been doing so his entire adult life - comment, Hillary?)Clinton will continue her hopeless, narcissistic campaign until the superdelegates end the primary. She will say anything, no matter how untrue, to make yet one more delusional argument promoting her nomination. It is time, past time, for the superdelegates to end this embarrassment.

Republicans typically claim to be the party of patriotism. But what is patriotism if it is not pride in and defense of our democracy? Yet Republicans are behind two insidious initiatives to corrupt our democracy: first, attempting to disenfranchise voters who do not have the resources to obtain required voter ID, and second, the incredibly cynical effort by Rush Limbaugh and others to urge Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries in such a way as to create chaos and mischief.

This poster's short answer: maybe, maybe not. But we are ready to try. 
Then the question is, can Obama's charisma win over enough doubters? The fear is that the Republican attack machine will slander him for his liberal views, and worse, will impugn his character with more bogus "Hamas" attacks, trying to tie him to radical terrorist muslims, and suggesting that he is not patriotic, not to be trusted as President.

How can Obama deflect these attacks? Will he be strong enough to retain his good humor, his charismatic speaking style, as personal attacks swirl around him (would any of us?)?
What advice would TPM bloggers give Obama, to withstand the attacks, go on the offensive, and win over the hearts of reluctant voters?

Why not Hillary for VP?
First, it is said that the main (and often only) good that a running mate can ultimately do is help the ticket win his/her home state. New York has been dependably Democratic for decades (with the exception of Reagan elections and Nixon's 1972 landslide). So Hillary will not help Obama in this regard.
Second, the running mate can hurt the ticket (e.g. the debacle of Dan Quayle's selection by G.H.W. Bush). In this regard, Clinton has very high negative poll numbers: there is a risk that Obama would lose votes because of her. Further, Bill Clinton has proven to be difficult to control, and has been an unpredictable factor in Hillary's campaign. There is a risk that Bill might be a very visible and possibly damaging presence for the Obama-Clinton campaign.
Third, Obama's selection of Clinton would nullify his message of change. We have had Clintons and Bushes on the national political stage for 20 years, or 28 if you count G.H.W.'s years as VP. It seems much of Obama's appeal is based on the promise of sweeping away current political practices in Washington, D.C.; how can that happen if he brings the Clintons back into power?
Finally, there are scores of highly talented leaders in the Democratic party, from about any state in the country, from which Obama can pick a running mate.
Obama has run a brilliant campaign that has apparently defeated an almost equally brilliant political couple, the Clintons. If he chooses Hillary for a running mate, there will evidently be some very good rationale. But as is evident from the posts here at TPM, and blogs elsewhere, many of his supporters will be deeply disappointed with such a choice, and this poster for one can see no upside whatever for Obama to name Clinton as his running mate.