Right now, I think Barack Obama can make a stronger case with the superdelegates for why they should hand him the nomination instead of giving it to Hillary Clinton. (As is clear, neither candidate can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.)

However, every time I inch toward hoping that Obama will win the nomination, he says or does something that alienates me. As I’ve written, Hillary’s advocacy of a gas tax holiday this summer is a major red flag for me. But I learned today that Obama has sent out a direct-mail piece in Kentucky that proclaims, “Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal.” (click the link to see the design)

People, there is no such thing as clean coal. Even if they develop carbon-capture technology in the next decade, there will still be environmental problems related to coal mining and other pollution caused by burning coal. The carbon-capture itself could be problematic, if the carbon is sequestered by turning large quantities of underground water into carbonic acid.

I also have to wonder if Obama really does believe in Kentucky coal. His own energy policy calls for not expanding coal-generated power until sequestration technology is available. For a guy who usually campaigns on being able to tell Americans the truth, even if it isn’t what they want to hear, Obama sure seems to be pandering to Kentucky Democrats. One recent poll in the state shows him more than 30 points behind Clinton. He’s not going to win the May 20 primary in any case, but I’m sure he would prefer not to lose by a 2-1 margin.

If Obama is just pretending to be for “clean Kentucky coal,” that undercuts his claim to be a different kind of politician. And if he really does believe in “clean Kentucky coal,” that’s worse from my perspective.

I didn’t watch Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina tonight, but Populista put up the transcript in this diary.

Populista particularly liked this passage:

So don’t ever forget that this election is not about me, or any candidate. Don’t ever forget that this campaign is about you– about your hopes, about your dreams, about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.

But I have to say that what is wonderful to many Obama supporters couldn’t be more of a turnoff to me.

That excerpt takes me back to one of the things I disliked about Ronald Reagan in the 80s–the way he used this self-actualizing, empowering rhetoric to get people to project their hopes and dreams onto his candidacy.

I want my candidate to be standing up for the core values of the Democratic Party, which can be defined–not for every American’s hopes and dreams, which could mean anything.

What politician can really claim to stand for everyone’s hopes and dreams? Anyway, some Americans are hoping for policies that are abhorrent to me.

Sometimes Obama seems to be telling me to just believe in myself, but if I need to hear that message I can buy a self-help book or go see a psychotherapist. We need concrete actions from the president, and not just a belief that we can do anything we put our minds to.

I should add that other parts of Obama’s speech tonight, where he got specific about the policies he favors, are much more to my liking.

And this was pure John Edwards:

This is the country that allowed my father-in-law– a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant– to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis– who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation.  It was a job that didn’t just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn’t just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it.

The idea of treating work and wealth fairly, and rewarding both, is exactly the frame we need to use when we talk about changing the tax code.

I also liked the way Obama said, “we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term.”

More like that, please.

Obama wins by double digits in North Carolina (56-42 with 95 percent reporting).

Clinton is ahead narrowly in Indiana (52-48 with 87 percent reporting). However, heavily African-American Lake County, where Gary is located, has not reported yet, and even the Obama supporter Markos finds that suspicious.

UPDATE: Clinton held on to win Indiana narrowly, 51-49, but Obama’s blowout in NC was by a bigger popular vote margin than Clinton’s in Pennsylvania. She needed to do better. I am glad that demagoguing on the gas tax didn’t pay off for her.

For Obama to keep it that close in Indiana bodes well for him, because he’s had a rough few weeks. However, I still disagree with those who say Hillary should pack it in. [UPDATE: Given that Obama’s popular vote lead now seems insurmountable, she may well want to quit, although I don’t think it would be terrible to wait until after the rest of the primaries.] Let all the states and territories vote, and then let the superdelegates settle this in mid-June. Voters are energized all over the country, and they should all have a chance to express their will. If Obama is ahead in the popular vote as well as the pledged delegate count, I think he should be the nominee.

On a related note, I thought Clinton supporter Todd Beeton made an excellent point today:

I was asked the other night: “Why is Hillary still in this thing?” I responded, “Has Barack won the nomination? Because if he has, why is he still campaigning?” Seriously, if the nomination is so settled as many Obama supporters like to claim, he’s free to just go home to Chicago. No one’s stopping him. Yet it’s Hillary Clinton who is the object of the ire of Obama supporters who seem to honestly believe that Hillary Clinton’s winning the nomination would be tantamount to her robbing him of something he hasn’t won yet. What a joke.

UPDATE: Wow, Donna Brazile, a self-described “undeclared” superdelegate who talks like an Obama supporter, made some worrisome comments tonight on CNN. Talk Left has the whole transcript here:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/…

Key excerpt:

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

She and Clinton supporter Paul Begala had quite the exchange after that.

It concerns me that some Obama supporters seem so unfazed by his failure to connect with certain key Democratic constituencies.

Elected officials and policy advocates are getting increasingly annoyed by Hillary Clinton’s decision to make this nominating contest about her really bad proposal to suspend the gas tax this summer and pay for it with a windfall tax on oil companies.

Today Tom Harkin weighed in on the issue, telling reporters that Congress will not take up this proposal. Even if the gas tax holiday were enacted, Harkin suggested, consumers would not benefit much, and the Iowa Department of Transportation would lose about $75 million in revenues to rebuild infrastructure.

Friends of the Earth Action, which supported John Edwards for president and had been sitting out the campaign since he left the race, today endorsed Barack Obama, largely because of the gas tax issue:

“We endorse Senator Obama because we believe he is the best candidate for the environment,” said Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder.  “The ‘gas tax holiday’ debate is a defining moment in the presidential race.  The two other candidates responded with sham solutions that won’t ease pain at the pump, but Senator Obama refused to play that typical Washington game.  Instead, Obama called for real solutions that would make transportation more affordable and curb global warming.  He showed the courage and candor we expect from a president.”

Friends of the Earth Action ran radio and television ads on behalf of Edwards in the early-voting states, and the group is now running this ad supporting Obama:

As I’ve said many times, I would vote for either Obama or Clinton in the general and have no strong preference between the two. I would hate to see Hillary gain the inside track for the nomination through this kind of political posturing, though. It’s such a bad idea on so many levels.

Obama appears to be feeling the heat on this issue. A few days ago his campaign put out a television ad calling the gas tax holiday a “bogus” idea that would just help big oil companies (click the link to view that ad). However, his closing ad in Indiana and North Carolina moves away from that issue to a more general message:

Meanwhile, Clinton seems to think she has hit pay dirt, and has made the gas tax the focus of her closing ad in the states that will vote tomorrow:

For a laugh, I highly recommend this diary by Matt Stoller, CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT POLITICAL PROPOSAL, which skewers Hillary’s proposal on the gas tax by presenting it in the format of those scam e-mails promising to make you rich.

Please put up your predictions for the Indiana and North Carolina primaries in the comments. I say these results will be mirror images of each other: Obama will win NC 55-45, and Hillary will win Indiana by the same margin.

The mainstream media’s atrocious coverage of this presidential election campaign should concern every Democrat, no matter which candidate was your first choice.

While it’s no surprise anymore to see pundits overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, even I was shocked to read this diary by Clinton supporter alegre.

She pointed out this post by Time magazine’s blogger Mark Halperin, who is about as mainstream as they come and whose blog is probably read by almost every journalist covering this campaign. The post is called, “You Can’t Make This Up,” and here is the entire text:

Hillary Clinton enthusiastically picked a filly named Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby and compared herself to the horse. Eight Belles finished second. The winner was the favorite, Big Brown.

Eight Belles collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.

Ha ha–get it? The woman picked the female horse to win the race, but not only did that horse lose to the big brown front-runner, she had to be put down afterwards! You can’t make this up!

Does anyone think Halperin’s editors would have let a comparable post slip through?

You Can’t Make This Up

Barack Obama enthusiastically picked a horse named Great Black Hope to win the Kentucky Derby and compared himself to the horse. Great Black Hope finished second. The winner was the favorite, Flyer.

Great Black Hope collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.

No, they wouldn’t, and it’s unlikely any journalist would even try to make fun of Obama identifying with a horse that lost and had to be put down after a race.

Sick.

When was the last time Demo Memo, noneed4thneed and I agreed on something related to this year’s presidential campaign?

We’re all against the terrible idea of temporarily suspending the federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I have already written about why this is bad policy, but I want to call your attention to this post by Chris Bowers, which explains how disastrous Hillary Clinton’s idea is politically on several levels.

You should read Bowers’ whole post, but here are some of my favorite passages:

  2. Clinton is threatening other Democrats on the gas tax holiday, claiming that opposing it means you are with the oil companies.

[there’s a YouTube here you can watch if you click through to Open Left]

     Not only is that nonsensical, it is reminiscent of the many times that Bill Clinton favored legislation in the face of opposition from the left: NAFTA, welfare reform, the telecommunications act, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc. She isn’t taking on the oil companies with this proposal, she is taking on the American left, just as her husband frequently did while he was President. Clearly, we can expect more of this if she were to become President.

  3. So, why is Clinton taking on the left and helping out oil companies? To score political points. Her campaign has said this in public [….]

     Given that one of the two or three main image problems the Democratic Party has faced over the past couple decades is the perception that we don’t stand for anything and lack core values, publicly stating that a policy proposal is good because it is helping you in the polls is extremely damaging. Of course, it is also the sort of language that both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton use on a regular basis, and which we should obviously expect a lot more of should Hillary Clinton become President. This will have lasting, negative effects on the image of the Democratic Party.

  4. Where did this policy come from? This isn’t a policy that Clinton has been campaigning on for a while–she just came up with in over the last two weeks. Given that she is willing to make some new gimmick the centerpiece of her public policy discussion on a whim in order to score political points, how can we ever believe that she won’t just dump whatever current policy proposals she has if, in so doing, she believes she can score political points with some right-wing gimmick policy?

[…]

The gas tax holiday episode collects all of my worst fears about a possible second Clinton presidency in a single, dark, place that I haven’t entered since the 1990’s. Are we to suffer through another Democratic President who will make impromptu, right-ward shifts toward bad policy, justified in nonsensical, Orwellian language, all the while claiming such a move must be done because it will score huge political points even though it is ultimately a bad political calculation, and then threaten the entire Democratic Party to fall in line behind such a move or else? This is basically all of my worst fears about Hillary Clinton becoming President rolled up into one giant ball of tin-foil and dropped on my front porch.

That about sums it up for me.

Clinton supporters claim that her proposal is different from John McCain’s, because she would impose a windfall tax on the oil companies to make up for the lost revenue from the gas tax holiday.

But if you know anything about how Congress works, you know that the part about the windfall tax would probably get stripped out by amendment (plenty of Congressional Democrats vote with Republicans when it comes to oil companies), or in the conference committee. Then we’d be stuck with the gas tax holiday that Hillary has been demagoguing on for the last couple of weeks, and oil companies would benefit.

By the way, I mentioned a few days ago that Hillary’s proposal seems hypocritical in light of her opposition to a similar gas tax holiday in 2000.

But that very same year, Obama voted to temporarily suspend the gas tax in the Illinois Senate. So he has not always taken a principled stand against this dumb idea either. (hat tip to Jeralyn at Talk Left)

Speaking of Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat made a brilliant observation yesterday. Commenting on a report that the gas tax holiday idea is “DOA” (dead on arrival) because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have spoken out against it, Big Tent Democrat noted that

it is funny how they can not declare FISA telco immunity DOA or how they could never declare Iraq funding without a date certain DOA. I have little respect for the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.

Me neither.

If you want to know the details about the pledged delegates and superdelegates for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, keep an eye on the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch site. On the left side of the front page, they are continually updating the delegate counts. Almost every day a superdelegate or two declare their allegiance.

The Daily Kos has also put a delegate counter at the top of the front page, and MyDD has its own counter on the front page of that site, but I think the Democratic Convention Watch blog has the most complete information.

If you want to know where Clinton and Obama currently stand against McCain in any state, check the front page of MyDD, where you will find electoral vote counters on the upper left and upper right side of the screens. These are continually updated with the latest state polls.

I noticed today that for the first time in several weeks, both Obama and Clinton lead McCain in electoral votes. For a long time both were behind, and then for a week or so Clinton was leading McCain while Obama trailed him.

The counters show maps of the U.S. with the states in red or blue, so you can see at a glance that Clinton and Obama have very different paths to victory against McCain.

Today Obama would be projected to beat McCain 275-263 by winning all of the Kerry states except New Hampshire, plus Iowa and Colorado.

Clinton would be projected to beat McCain 287-251 by winning most of the Kerry states except Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire, plus Iowa, Ohio, Florida and Missouri.

The electoral vote trackers change almost every day, so keep checking the front page of MyDD if you are interested.

Joe Trippi wrote an interesting piece for Campaigns and Elections called “What I Should Have Told John Edwards.”

Trippi regrets that when Edwards asked him if he should drop out of the presidential race, he

didn’t go with my gut.

I didn’t tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

[…]

It was a longshot, to be sure, but there remained the chance of a three-way battle going all the way to the convention. I thought we could make a big dent in Ohio by appealing to middle-class working people. The same in places like Kansas, Colorado and the Dakotas. It was possible to make those a dead-heat for all three candidates in terms of delegate wins. And today, as I write this, I realize we might have had as many as 500 delegates heading into Pennsylvania and North Carolina, two states that would probably be strong for Edwards.

That would mean Edwards, Obama and Clinton would go into the convention without any of them close to sealing the nomination. You would have had months of Obama and Clinton banging away at each other, with Edwards able to come across to weary Democrats as a welcome, fresh face. You’d have the electability argument begin to play to Edwards’ advantage, since he always did well against McCain in polling. These possibilities and more played through my mind.

Let me make clear that in January, I was 100 percent behind Edwards staying in the race until the convention, even though it was obvious after the New Hampshire primary that his chance of becoming the nominee was virtually zero.

I wrote front-page diaries for the national blog MyDD on Ten Reasons for Sticking with John Edwards and why all Democrats should be glad to see Edwards stay in the race. That second piece included the following passage:

The bottom line for me is that Edwards is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have and never will. In the debates, his campaign rallies, and his television advertisements, he is calling attention to problems that the corporate media filter out all too often.

Many Obama supporters are frustrated that Edwards has not dropped out of the race and endorsed their candidate. They think he is only splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

I think everyone should be happy that Edwards will hang in there, even though others are currently favored to win the nomination. I believe that the Republican hate machine will not unload on Clinton or Obama until they are certain that Edwards is out of the race. Since Obama has not yet faced tough scrutiny from the media, it is all the more important for Edwards to stay in the mix.

Since January the Democratic primary race has degenerated into identity politics and personal attacks, with little focus on issues Edwards brought to the table, like the excesses of corporate power.

Nor has his departure brought the Democratic contest to a rapid conclusion. When Edwards was on one of the talk shows in late March (I think it was Leno), he said that when he dropped out, he expected that the Democratic nominee would have been decided by mid-March. So quitting the race didn’t achieve the goal he had in mind.

In my heart, like Trippi, I feel disappointed that Edwards did not stay in for the duration. If he had been there for the debates, the moderators might have asked a few more substantive questions, or the Clinton and Obama campaigns might have altered their own strategies.

On the other hand, I doubt very much that given the media environment of late January, Edwards could have won 300 delegates on Super Tuesday, as Trippi suggests. If he had won fewer than 100 delegates, the pressure on him to drop out would have been so overwhelming (with major donors and superdelegates jumping ship) that I doubt he would have had a very good showing in Ohio on March 4.

My head tells me that one way or another, the media and the Democratic power-brokers would have been able to force Edwards out long before the primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.

What do you think? Leaving aside whether you think Edwards had any chance of winning the nomination at a brokered convention, do you think the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee would have been better served by having him stay in the race longer?

An Edwards supporter I’m still in touch with online brought these links to my attention, and I felt they were worth sharing. A few weeks ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared at a “Compassion Forum” and answered some questions about God and prayer backstage.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s website has some transcripts and audio clips. Here is

Obama answering the question, “In the quiet moments of your day, what do you pray for?” (click through for the audio link)

“I pray throughout the day but at night before I go to bed I have a fairly simple prayer. I ask that God forgives me for my sins. I thank him for all that he has given me especially my family which is a great treasure. I ask that he give peace to people in need and people in trouble and I ask that he makes me an instrument of his will. I figure that covers a lot of ground.”

That’s a good prayer, and it certainly does cover a lot of ground.

I was blown away by Hillary’s response to the question, “When you stand before God, what might a question be that you’ll ask Him?” (this is an excerpt, click through for the whole text):

I would ask how could a loving God have let so much despair, suffering and pain be part of the human experience? What were you teaching us? What were you modeling for us? We know that you had your son suffer excruciatingly and he died for us and I can’t thank you enough for that gift but so many people who seem so innocent have also suffered so much. Was there any point at which you thought you could perhaps just you know, reach out and just lessen it a little or did you expect us to do that? Was that our job? Is that what we were called to do with the gifts that you gave onto us?”

All I can say is, I would like to be there when God answers those questions.

Speaking of religion and politics, I have avoided writing about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, because I don’t feel I have anything unique to add to the discussion.

Obviously, I don’t believe Obama agrees with the more offensive comments Wright has made. On the contrary, this conjecture by Obama supporter Matthew Yglesias has the ring of truth for me:

it’ll hurt him electorally because Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc.

So I am not the least bit worried that Obama shares Wright’s views.

I do get depressed thinking about the endless attack ads that will feature Wright’s inflammatory remarks (juxtaposed with Obama not putting his hand over his heart and Michelle Obama saying this is the first time in her adult life she’s been proud to be an American). It fits so well with the typical Republican playbook against Democrats: brand them as extremist and unpatriotic.

At least this has come out in the spring, rather than after Labor Day, when it could have done the most damage to our likely presidential nominee. On the other hand, I’m annoyed that Obama was able to keep Reverend Wright under wraps until after most of the states had voted.

If Wright had been a household name six months ago, I do not believe Obama would have won the Iowa caucuses.

When I think of all the Obama supporters and leaners who told me last year that John Edwards was unelectable because he has a big house and got an expensive haircut, I just shake my head. Some people imagined that Obama’s media honeymoon would never end, and the Republicans wouldn’t be able to dig up anything damaging about him.

UPDATE: My husband and I loved Jon Stewart’s segment on the media’s coverage of Reverend Wright during The Daily Show on Wednesday. Catch the rerun on Thursday if you can.

Buried at the end of a detailed post on the dueling delegate counts provided by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, Chris Bowers put forward a great idea for a Michigan/Florida compromise:

If I were in charge, I would seat Florida’s pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.

I have written before that it would be suicide for Obama to go into the general election campaign having argued for ignoring the primary votes in Michigan and Florida. I was open to a revote, but the Obama campaign made sure that didn’t happen in either state. Bowers’ idea makes a lot of sense to me. Rank and file voters should not be punished for the screwups of party leaders.

Meanwhile, JedReport put up a good diary at Daily Kos blaming the superdelegates for prolonging the primary election campaign.  

I think the extended race is on balance good for the Democrats, because voters are being energized all over the country (click here to read about the surge in Democratic voter registration in Oregon).

But if you’re an Obama supporter who’s frustrated that the race continues, JedReport’s diary indicates that your anger at the Clinton campaign or the media is misplaced. The superdelegates could have brought down the curtain on this race two months ago, but they have stood on the sidelines.

My only quibble with JedReport is that the pledged delegate count, which he thinks should guide the superdelegates’ decision, does not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

So far there have been at least two states (NV and TX) where Obama emerged with more pledged delegates despite having fewer people turn out to support him.

Also, the caucus systems in many states produced lopsided delegate counts that (in my view) do not reflect the will of the voters. Does anyone really think that Minnesota Democrats would have favored Obama over Hillary by a 2-1 margin in a primary?

Not only that, one caucus-goer in Wyoming had as much influence over the pledged delegate race as 19 primary voters in California (here is the link).

I’m for changing the system to ban caucuses for purposes of presidential candidate selection. Also, I would want to change the way pledged delegates are allocated so that no candidate could lose the popular vote in a state while winning the pledged delegate count.

Of course, this does not excuse the strategic failure of the Clinton campaign to have a game plan for the caucus states.

But if we are going to ban superdelegates, or require superdelegates to get behind the pledged delegate leader, then we better have a more equitable system for allocating the pledged delegates. It’s wrong for Obama to net as many pledged delegates from a low-turnout caucus state as Hillary netted in the Ohio primary blowout.

Over at Daily Kos, Markos has a post up about “Clinton’s shameless hypocrisy on the fuel tax”:

   Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday criticized Barack Obama for opposing the concept of suspending the gas tax during the peak summer driving months, a plan both she and Republican John McCain have endorsed.

   The idea to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day was first proposed by McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, as a way to ease the economic burden for consumers during the summer.

   Obama does not support the “gas tax holiday” and has said the average motorist would not benefit significantly from such a suspension; by some estimates, the federal government would lose about $10 billion in revenue.

   “My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break,” Clinton said, campaigning in North Carolina. “I understand the American people need some relief.”

For once I agree with Markos–this is a bad, bad move by Hillary Clinton. His main point is that she’s a huge hypocrite, because she argued against a similar gas tax holiday when she was running for the Senate in 2000.

Even worse from my perspective, she has flipped to supporting a horrendous idea floated by McCain. I explained why suspending the gas tax is is bad policy in this post.

It’s bad politics as well, because Hillary adopts the Republican “tax relief” frame to score a political point against our likely Democratic presidential nominee. She should never suggest that McCain is more sensitive to the needs of consumers than Obama is. That is flat-out wrong.

This is not how she should be making her case against Obama.  

Poligirl wrote a good diary about an op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s New York Times: “Bowling 1, Health Care 0.”

She slammed the media for its superficial coverage of the presidential campaign during the past year, and particularly during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary:

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.

Political junkie that I am, I do know something about Joe Biden’s health care plan (no thanks to the mainstream media). Elizabeth Edwards tells it like it is:

What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.

I said many times last year that if Biden had the media hype Obama was getting, he would be a strong contender for the nomination. He had a great stump speech and performed better in every debate than Obama did, but all you heard from the leading analysts was that Biden was a gaffe machine.

Thanks again to poligirl for including a link to an audio interview of Elizabeth Edwards talking about her op-ed piece.

How many presidential campaigns will our infotainment complex get wrong before they finally give people the news coverage they deserve?

A while back I stopped reading the “Edwards should endorse Obama” diaries at Daily Kos, because I was tired of getting drawn into arguments with Hillary-haters in the comment threads. Moreover, I really don’t care whether John Edwards endorses a candidate–it wouldn’t change my feelings about either of the contenders.

When Elizabeth Edwards recently confirmed that she prefers Hillary’s health-care plan and will appear alongside Clinton when she campaigns in North Carolina, some of the Obama fans at Daily Kos went ballistic. Again, I avoided those diaries, because I am tired of trying to explain to people that yes, many health-care experts agree that some form of individual mandates are needed in order to provide truly universal health care.

Today longtime Edwards supporter Benny put up a rant at the EENRblog about somebody’s open letter pleading with Elizabeth Edwards to endorse Obama. I wasn’t planning to read the diary Benny was complaining about, but edgery highlighted an amazing assertion that prompted me to click over.

This statement in Bcgntn’s diary is what grabbed my attention:

Senator Clinton may believe without Lyndon Johnson the Civil Rights Act 1964 would not have come into being.  I recall those years.  People were out on the streets in protest.  The community concluded it was time for a change.  The President merely signed the papers.  

I’ve written before about how annoyed I was in January when the Obama campaign took Hillary’s comments about LBJ and twisted them into some allegedly racist remark denigrating Martin Luther King Jr.

But that’s not my main point today. What that Obama supporter wrote reflects a fantasy shared by too many Obama supporters, in my opinion: namely, that if he is elected, Obama is going to do what his people-powered movement demands.

One of my biggest concerns about Obama has always been that he seems likely to make far too many concessions to the Republican agenda or to DC pundits’ conventional wisdom. He has chosen not to lead on some of the key battles in the U.S. Senate. He talks a lot about finding consensus and bringing people together. His strategy for winning the open-primary states has been to maximize his support among Republicans and independents who cross over.

When you look at his very cautious voting record and avoidance of leading on any controversial issue, it seems highly unlikely to me that he will govern like a progressive. There will be many days when Obama has to choose between doing what Tim Russert and David Broder would like, and doing what the Obama fans at Daily Kos would like, and I think the Kossacks will be the disappointed ones on those days.

I’ve raised this point with several thoughtful Obama supporters, such as Populista, the 14-year-old who will probably be a great progressive leader someday. The consensus seems to be that if he gets elected, Obama will have to listen to the activists who have done so much to support his presidential campaign. He has empowered people who are the change we’ve been waiting for.

This to me seems as deluded as saying that the civil rights legislation of 1964 happened because the “community concluded it was time for a change.  The President merely signed the papers.”

I am not old enough to remember 1964, but I challenge any Obama supporter to find me one historian of that period who will agree with that contention. The fact is, LBJ dragged Congress kicking and screaming to do much more on civil rights than probably any other president could have gotten passed.

Don’t discount the importance of presidential leadership. People were out in the streets protesting the Vietnam War for years before we finally got out of there.

If Obama gets elected, he will not have the clout with Congress that LBJ had. But even if he did, I simply don’t see Obama as the kind of leader who would go to the mat to push a strong progressive agenda through a resistant Congress. He seems more likely to move halfway toward the Republican position, then declare victory.

Like I always say, I would love to be proven wrong if Obama does manage to get by John McCain. But don’t imagine that the people-powered movement will be calling the shots, and President Obama will just be signing the papers.

This morning I saw a friend who is an Edwards delegate to the third district convention coming up this Saturday. He was complaining that he’d received no direction from the Edwards campaign, or from prominent Iowans for Edwards, about what he should do.

Before the county conventions in March, the Edwards campaign did almost nothing to shore up support from delegates elected on January 3 at the precinct caucuses (besides an e-mail from Roxanne Conlin and Rob Tully that went out two days before the county conventions, urging delegates to stick with Edwards).

Today Lynda Waddington reported at Iowa Independent that

Yesterday, Iowa delegates that are pledged to Clinton and those who remain pledged to the suspended presidential run of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received a full-page, full-color reminder of the upcoming Democratic district conventions.

Click the link to see the visual of the mailer, but here is a key excerpt aimed at the Edwards delegates:

“John Edwards ran his campaign with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concerns for the daily lives of the American people. He and I both put forth universal health care plans, not because it was easy, but because health care for every man, woman and child is vital to giving every American family the opportunity for the American dream.

Together, let’s make universal health care a reality. I would be honored to have your support at your Congressional District Convention.”

It will be interesting to see if this works. At the county conventions, most of the Edwards delegates who switched moved toward Obama. I know of some like my friend who favor Clinton, though, partly because the Clinton health care plan is closer to what Edwards proposed.

Looks like Hillary is winning this thing by about 10 percent, 55-45 with 94 percent reporting.

If you just consider Pennsylvania’s demographics, that isn’t too surprising. However, we’re coming out of a month in which she was massively outspent by Obama, and the media narrative has been that she is unlikely to win the nomination now.

The official memo from the Obama campaign notes that Clinton failed to make significant gains in the pledged-delegate count. True, but what does it say about Obama that he couldn’t close the deal despite spending more than his opponent and having generally more favorable media coverage?

As a memo from the Clinton campaign pointed out earlier today, Obama spent a lot of money on negative advertising and negative direct-mail pieces in Pennsylvania. He still couldn’t make the sale.

I like the way Todd Beeton (a Clinton voter in the California primary) reacted to the spin from Obama-leaning analysts at MSNBC:

I have to say I was amused to hear Keith Olbermann announce with child-like glee at 8:01pm that the race was too close to call and how that had to make the Clinton campaign nervous. The subtext of his enthusiasm was clearly shadenfreude that Hillary Clinton was going to underperform expectations. I thought to myself: where the hell has he been? Time after time exit polls overestimate Barack Obama’s performance, not to mention that on election nights past, namely Feb 5th and March 4th, neither California nor Ohio, solid Clinton wins both, was called for her right away either. And sure enough, 93% in and she’s still up by the magic 10%.

Then just a few minutes ago, Keith asked an uncomfortable Tom Brokaw whether it is wise for Hillary Clinton to be Bush to Obama’s Gore in Bush v. Gore.

Riiight.

Seriously, at what point are these guys going to start holding their own candidate accountable for why this thing is still going on instead of complaining that Hillary is competing in contests that she is winning.

But Todd, didn’t you know that the Clintons are evil, and everything bad that happens to Obama is orchestrated by them?

I am glad that Clinton didn’t listen to the Obama fan clubbers who demanded that she drop out a month ago. There was record-breaking turnout today in a state that has not influenced the nominating process in recent history. Oh yeah, and Democrats made huge gains in voter registration in a critical swing state this past month.

In other news, a Democrat almost won a special election in Mississippi’s deep-red first Congressional district. Looking like a great year to be a Democrat!

What’s going to happen in Pennsylvania today?

Markos predicts a Clinton victory by 8 percent and more than 200,000 votes:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Obama supporter poblano backs up his similar prediction with some interesting analysis:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

If Obama keeps this one close (within 5 percent), it will be viewed as a blow to Clinton. If she crushes him like she did in Ohio, it will not be enough to win her the nomination, but it will increase doubts about Obama’s ability to close the deal with Democrats. He massively outspent Clinton over the past six weeks in Pennsylvania.

I think Clinton will win, but not in a blowout: 53-47.

Put your predictions in the comments section.

Every once in a while on one of the national political blogs, a supporter of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards will assert that Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses by busing in thousands of ineligible voters from out of state.

As any regular reader of this blog knows, I am no fan of Obama, and I’ve strongly criticized some aspects of the Iowa caucus system.

But I have yet to encounter any serious observer of Iowa politics who believes Obama won Iowa by cheating. I have been talking to many volunteers for the Clinton and Edwards campaigns in Iowa, and a few staffers, while researching a future diary on how those candidates might have beaten Obama here. Literally no one I’ve talked with has claimed that Obama did not legitimately win the caucuses.

No doubt there were some people from out of state who fraudulently registered to vote here on caucus night. I’ve heard that may have been a particular problem in some areas of Scott County. But I haven’t seen any evidence that the Obama campaign orchestrated any fraud, and there’s no way the cheaters were numerous enough to account for Obama’s margin of victory here.

If you don’t believe me, read this story from the Des Moines Register: Caucuses drew few ineligible voters:

The Register review of voter registration data from all 99 counties reveals a low rate of new voter applications filled out on caucus night by people whose addresses later could not be verified.

Only 1.5 percent of the new voter identification cards mailed to voters who registered on caucus night were returned to county auditors as undeliverable. That’s an indication that the vast majority of new caucus-night voters had a bona fide address in Iowa.

State officials say the low error rate is impressive, especially since caucus-night turnout vastly exceeded expectations and overwhelmed local party officials around the state.

The other argument I hear from the occasional conspiracy theorist on a different blog is that Obama’s campaign bused in large numbers of students from out of state. First, that would have affected turnout in a relatively small number of Iowa’s 1,800 precincts.

Second, as long as those students attend Iowa colleges and live in state most of the year, I have no problem with a campaign helping them get back to their campuses in early January. What’s the qualitative difference between that and my giving someone in my neighborhood a ride to the caucus if he or she can’t drive?

The caucuses never should have been scheduled during the winter vacation of most colleges anyway.  

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards were all on the Colbert Report on Thursday.

The whole show was hilarious, so catch the rerun on Friday if you’ve got cable. But I just had to post this You Tube of Edwards doing “The Word” segment (thanks, NCDem!):

Too funny.

On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart absolutely skewered the moderators of that ABC Clinton-Obama debate. Also well worth watching the rerun. I couldn’t find that video on the Comedy Central site yet, though.

We don’t turn on the tv while children are awake, so I won’t be watching. Maybe I will catch the repeat later.

If you watched, let us know how the candidates did.

UPDATE: The consensus in the liberal blogosphere is that the questions were a disgrace, even by the low standards set in other presidential debates this cycle. More than 40 minutes passed before a question on a real issue came up. Hugely important issues were never brought up–instead it was one stupid “gotcha” question after another directed at Barack Obama.

I’m glad I didn’t waste my time.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Judy Woodruff, who moderated the AARP forum for PBS last September, was the only journalist who did well at any of the presidential debates last year. She asked substantive, direct questions about real issues and followed up appropriately. No trick questions, no wasting time on the overblown media flap of the week.

who is repelled by the overheated Hillary-hating rhetoric coming from some Obama supporters. Rebecca Traister has written a good feature for Salon. Go read the whole thing to see how bashing Hillary alienates even some women who have voted for Obama. Traister writes,

I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent’s. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man — but one whom even his wife calls “just a man.”

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn’t know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race — an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she’d had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton’s policies before adding that when he hears the senator’s voice, he’s overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

Obama fans, you don’t have to like Clinton, but if you want to help your candidate, keep your feelings about Hillary in perspective (or if you can’t do that, at least keep them to yourself).

Your guy’s voting record in the U.S. Senate is almost exactly the same as hers, as big-time Obama supporter DemocraticLuntz has shown. The policies proposed by Obama and Clinton during this campaign are very similar as well.

Remember: your candidate is winning now and will need all hands on deck after the primaries are over. You don’t want to drive away anyone who might otherwise be inspired to volunteer for Obama.

The usually-fascinating diarist poblano (see diary history here) has put up an interesting analysis of how a possible “unity bounce” for our nominee would affect the general election outcome.

Poblano cites a piece by Chuck Todd, who argues:

Currently polls show McCain either narrowly ahead or even with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is impressive considering how poorly the GOP, and specifically the president, are viewed by the public.

  But it is a faux lead. If the de facto Democratic nominee is clear within the next 4-6 weeks, that person will see a poll bounce. And according to GOP pollster Steve Lombardo, it could be one heck of a bounce, like post-convention. He anticipates the Democratic candidate will move up 10 points once the primary race is over.

Click through to see how poblano calculates a bounce like that would affect Obama’s chances of winning key states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I hope he’s right, although I am not convinced that such a large “unity bounce” would materialize.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos front-pager smintheus showed yesterday that the extended primary season has a lot of benefits for the Democratic Party as a whole. Look at Pennsylvania, where the primary is almost always meaningless. Democrats are registering enormous numbers of new voters as both Clinton and Obama mobilize supporters. Also, large numbers of people registered as independents or Republicans have switched to Democrat:

Perhaps the most remarkable news is that Democrats now hold a majority in two suburban Philadelphia counties that have been predominantly Republican for many years, Montgomery and Bucks.

[…]

And nearby in both Chester and Delaware, where four months ago Republicans had about 65,000 more registered voters per county, the deficit has been cut to 35,000.

[…]

All in all, there have been massive Democratic gains this winter in suburban Philly. Democrats also picked up another 50,000 registrations in Philadelphia.

[…]

What does it mean for the April 22 primary? Philadelphia and suburbs have added about 140,000 new Democrats this year, the rest of the state another 167,000.

Even if some of these people are Democrats-for-a-day who want to vote for Obama in the primary just to dispense with Hillary, the majority are likely to vote again for Democrats in the general election.

Keep in mind that Gore won Pennsylvania by about 200,000 votes, but Kerry only won by about 100,000 votes. The people mobilized to participate in this exciting primary season could make the difference between us or McCain winning that crucial state in November.

Relax, Obama supporters. Let the primaries play out and stop screaming for Hillary to drop out now.

David Mizner has written a diary I recommend to all supporters of Barack Obama. It highlights behavior that inadvertently harms Obama’s campaign by driving away some Democrats who otherwise lean toward him.

Mizner was an active supporter of John Edwards for president, as his diary history shows. Like me, he wrote regular front-page posts advocating for Edwards at MyDD. But after Edwards dropped out, Mizner voted for Obama in the New York primary on February 5.

On its surface, Mizner’s latest piece is an inside-baseball critique of editorial bias at the Daily Kos. He demonstrates how Markos Moulitsas has in recent months become an uncritical cheerleader for Obama, after being skeptical toward all the Democratic candidates in 2007.

But I recommend this diary not because you should care about what some blogger thinks of Markos. Rather, I think Mizner has touched on the alienation many Democrats feel when they encounter the overheated Hillary-hating and Obama-loving rhetoric from Obama fans:

It’s no coincidence that in the last two months the site has devolved into a propaganda organ for the Obama campaign. Although it’s aggravating to come across Drudgery at the top of the rec list and casual claims that Hillary is a sociopath, it’s not the nastiness that’s worrisome (freedom is untidy); it’s the laziness, the unquestioning partisanship, the lack of brainwork. These days at Daily Kos there’s no exchange of ideas, no debate. Obama is good, Hillary is bad, case closed.

It’s probably not wise to go looking to Daily Kos or any other political blog for Truth, but the progressive blogosphere fancies itself the reality-based community, and that commodity is in short supply at the mothership. If you’re a progressive untouched by enthusiasm for Obama or hatred for Hillary, you must be wondering what race Kossacks are watching. In the race I’ve watched, Obama has not campaigned as a transformative progressive. In the race I’ve watched, he has failed to offer a single bold policy initiative, coddled a virulent homophobe for political purposes, voted to fund the war in Iraq and justified doing so by parroting a disgusting rightwing talking point, echoed the GOP claim that the Social Security system is in crisis, refused to join Edwards in opposing the Global War on Terror framework, joined George Bush in seeking to expand the size of the military by 92,000 troops, said he would increase the military budget, supported corporate free trade, enlisted Tom Daschle to assemble a base of support on K-Street, raised buckets of cash fromlobbyist-law firms, and bashed unions for helping Edwards until he himself was the beneficiary of labor’s largesse. Et Cetera.

A dozen links in that passage didn’t come through when I copied and pasted, but click to the original diary and you’ll see that Mizner has the links to back up what he is saying.

This passage also made a crucial point that Obama supporters rarely acknowledge:

I’m not going to defend the Clinton campaign’s race-baiting or its praising of McCain at Obama’s expense. Nor, though, will I defend the Obama’s campaign sexism, or its willingness to claim race-baiting where there is none. I believe history will show both that the Clnton campaign wanted to turn Barack into the “black candidate” and that the Obama campaign wanted to turn Hillary into the racist candidate. They both exploited racial resentment.

Several links in that paragraph didn’t come through. The most important one is to the memo that the Obama campaign distributed in South Carolina, which sought to portray the Clintons as using racially divisive rhetoric. That memo was designed to give Obama an edge among blacks and white liberals, and it worked, but it also distorted Hillary’s comments about Lyndon Johnson and Bill’s comments about the “fairy tale.”

My impression is that intense Obama supporters can’t understand why everyone isn’t as outraged as they are over the latest stupid comment by some Clinton supporter. First, the Obama campaign has crossed lines too, as Mizner points out. Second, many progressives have, according to Mizner,

abdicated the job of trying to hold Obama accountable. Both Move On and Blue Majority gave him endorsements without offering so much as constructive criticism. Kos himself hasn’t written one word critical of Obama in several weeks, during which time Obama has sent nothing but alarming signals on the sphere’s signature issue: Iraq. Unlike Hillary, he wouldn’t ban corporate mercenaries and his advisors are describing his modest withdrawal plan as a “best case scenario” and calling for a large residual force. Also unmentioned by Kos and the other Daily Kos front page bloggers is Obama’s attempt to denythat he once held certain liberal positions.

Again, the links did not come through, but you can find many in the diary.

When Obama puts up red flags, and onetime reasonable progressives have nothing but praise for him and condemnation for Hillary, it turns off a lot of Democrats.

Speaking of the devolution of political discourse lately, I can’t resist linking to a diary Mizner wrote last month: “Do You Miss Edwards Yet?” The opening paragraph was a classic:

Ah, 2007. How I long for those halcyon, pre-Ferraro days when a major issue in the primary was the dangerous influence of corporate power. Thanks to Edwards, the Big Three battled over who would be more willing and able to take on corporations. There was reason to doubt that the policies proposed by Obama and Clinton–and even by Edwards, perhaps–would deliver the bold change they promised, but at least the issue of corporate power was front and center. Now, though, with Edwards gone, the issue is barely an issue, and somewhere CEOs and Wall Street execs are laughing.

Ain’t that the truth.

The Republican presidential candidate is at a big financial disadvantage compared to the likely Democratic nominee.

John Kerry raised over $40 million in March 2004 after clinching the Democratic nomination. He was still far behind George W. Bush in the money race, because the president had not had to compete in the primaries and could devote a lot of time to big-ticket fundraisers.

John McCain clinched the Republican nomination on February 5 and formally won enough delegates to be the nominee on March 4. But he only managed to raise $15 million in March. According to Marc Ambinder, Mitt Romney has promised to help McCain raise another $15 million or so from Romney supporters.

To put that in perspective, Barack Obama raised more than $40 million in March, and Hillary Clinton, who is quite the longshot for the Democratic nomination, managed to raise about $20 million that month.

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer noted that Obama raised more money in March alone than McCain raised in the entire first quarter.

I know a lot of you are worried about the continuing Democratic contest, but I think we should relax and let the rest of the primaries play out. The likelihood is that after Puerto Rico votes on June 7, Obama will be far enough ahead that the superdelegates will move decisively in his direction.

Meanwhile, McCain isn’t going to be building any kind of warchest that Obama can’t match.

Over at Century of the Common Iowan, noneed4thneed put up a link to the latest Rasmussen poll of Iowa. Holy cow–Obama beats McCain here 46 percent to 42 percent, but Hillary loses to McCain 51 percent to 36 percent. McCain has hardly ever campaigned here and finished fourth in the Republican caucuses. Noneed4thneed noted that Rasmussen found

McCain leads Clinton by a two-to-one margin among unaffiliated voters. However, Obama leads McCain 46% to 37% among those same voters.

The latest round of Survey USA polls had a similar finding (sorry, no link). Obama and Hillary look poised to win a comparable number of electoral votes against McCain, but they do it in different ways. Obama was ahead in Iowa against McCain, but Hillary was trailing the Republican. Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, I have to believe he would be heavily favored to win Iowa. Rasmussen's poll may show his lead within the margin of error, but Obama has a huge volunteer army to draw on here from the caucuses, while McCain didn't build any kind of organization in Iowa.

Be glad Hillary Clinton didn’t take the advice of the Barack Obama supporters who have been urging her to drop out for more than a month now.

Democrats are making huge gains in voter registration in Pennsylvania, a must-win state for our nominee this fall.

Does anyone think this would be happening if both candidates weren’t working the state hard in the runup to the primary?

Smintheus has more on the Pennsylvania trends at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

And Jonathan Singer adds some useful analysis on Pennsylvania at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

I am continually amazed by the pretzel logic displayed by some bloggers who support Obama. No, these people are not crackpots; their work is enthusiastically recommended and praised by their fellow travelers.

A few days ago Hillary Clinton unambiguously confirmed that she will be 100 percent behind Obama if he wins the nomination:

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.”

The crowd applauded loudly.[…]

Clinton stressed that there are “significant” differences between her and Obama, but said “those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain.”

“I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party,” she said. “When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we’re going to close ranks, we’re going to be united.”

If you only read blogs that take their cue from the Obama campaign’s talking points of the day, you missed this story.

I didn’t see jubilant front-page posts and recommended diaries about it at Daily Kos either.

On the other hand, every offensive statement made by some supporter of Clinton becomes a federal offense, one that must be denounced by all who back Hillary.

I’ll continue this discussion after the jump.

I have seen enough. All of the pundits, liberal, conservative, man, woman, black, or white say the same thing: It is nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to catch up in the delegate count! To me that says, “It's time to bow out!” If we Democrats want to win in November Hillary Clinton has got to step aside, and clear the stage for Barack Obama to prepare to beat John McCain in the fall! Step aside Hillary, step aside!

Probably you knew that already, but techfidel provides this great analysis of the demographics in Ohio and Pennsylvania, going down to the county level.

The bottom line is that if the various demographic groups vote the same way in PA as they did in OH, techfidel projects a 57-43 victory for Hillary.

Click the link to see the maps and read the detailed explanation. There is also a spreadsheet you can download if you’re interested.

I missed the Leno show last night, but NCDemAmy came through with the YouTube, as usual. Here it is, for those who are curious to hear what John Edwards has been up to:

No big news in the interview–he wisely is not endorsing either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and says both would be excellent candidates, far better than the alternative.

Parents may appreciate his story about his son Jack!

The answer depends on what state you’re looking at.

Recent polling suggests that Barack Obama has been running much better than Hillary Clinton against John McCain in states such as Iowa and Colorado.

However, that appears not to be the case in some other important swing states. Survey USA released three new state polls:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/…

In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50-44, but McCain beats Obama 50-43.

In Missouri, McCain leads Clinton 48-46 (within margin of error), and McCain leads Obama 53-39.

In Kentucky, McCain leads Clinton 53-43 and leads Obama 64-28. Obviously, Democrats are not going to carry Kentucky in the presidential race, but there may be some close Congressional races in that state. Who is going to be better for our down-ticket candidates?

For the record, I think both Clinton and Obama could beat McCain or lose to McCain. I have no idea who has a better chance of getting 270 electoral votes. I do think Obama runs a greater risk of losing in a Dukakis-style blowout than Clinton does.

Right now I’m pessimistic about either of them being able to win the general, in part because of the way our primary is now all about identity politics rather than issues.

As I’ve written before, I believe that some compromise must be found to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida at the Democratic National Convention.

By “compromise,” I don’t mean the Obama campaign’s proposal to give both Clinton and Obama 50 percent of the delegates from each state, which would disregard the will of the people. I mean a compromise that would reflect how Democrats in those states voted.

I was open to a re-vote, but that idea has been killed in Florida and appears less and less likely in Michigan.

Obama supporter Gordon Fischer celebrates the way they Obama campaign ran out the clock on re-votes.

Obama supporter noneed4thneed doesn’t see why Obama should back a re-vote in Michigan.

Obama supporter Chris Bowers made a much stronger case that Obama should want a re-vote in Michigan, since it would very likely allow him to wrap up the nomination in June rather than having things drag out to a floor fight at the convention.

To my mind, the key question should be not what is best for Obama, but the principle of counting people’s votes and the pragmatic need for Democrats not to alienate voters in two large states.

We cannot afford to go into the general election having angered Democrats in Michigan and Florida, particularly since both Obama and Clinton currently trail John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

New polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Florida Democrats want their votes to be counted, and one-fourth of them may leave the Democratic Party if that does not happen.

Look, Obama fans, if you are so confident that your guy will hold on to his lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, you should have been lobbying for re-votes. Now that a re-vote is off the table for Florida and possibly Michigan, you should be open to some compromise that reflects the way Democrats voted (such as cutting the number of delegates from each state in half).

This situation is screwed up, and many parties are to blame, but the rank-and-file Democrats in those states did not create this problem.

It will be suicide for Obama to go into the general telling Michigan and Florida voters, “I’m sorry, you broke the rules, I don’t care about letting you have a say in the primaries.”

Even I know that Al Qaeda is a Sunni extremist group, and Iran is governed by a Shiite regime.

According to the Washington Post, Republican presidential candidate John McCain hasn’t grasped that fact:

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

It was a big mistake for Hillary Clinton to say a couple of weeks ago that McCain had passed the commander-in-chief threshold. Anyone who doesn’t even know the most basic information about our enemies in the Middle East is unqualified to be president. What have his staff and advisers been briefing him on in the Senate and on the campaign trail?

Over at MyDD, Jonathan Singer summarizes the reaction from around the blogosphere and points out that this was no slip of the tongue. McCain has been making the same erroneous statement for some time, demonstrating that he has no clue about the differences between Sunni and Shiite extremists.

MyDD user Steve M’s take on the situation is amusing.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman was apparently reading my mind:

http://www.samefacts.com/archi…

Given McCain’s buffoonish performance in Jordan, wouldn’t this be a good time for Hillary Clinton to say, “Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief, but it sure doesn’t sound like it. The least we should expect from the President is some basic knowledge about who our enemies are.”

Bleeding Heartland readers, I would be interested in your views on how the Iowa caucuses might have turned out differently.

Let’s assume that Barack Obama runs the exact campaign he ran last year in terms of strategy and execution, and has the same monetary resources he had available.

What, if anything, could other candidates have done to beat Obama in Iowa? Keep in mind that both Clinton and Edwards executed their strategies pretty well in Iowa (in my opinion), with

both of them getting more than 70,000 people to stand in their corners on January 3. That “should” have been enough to win, even if turnout had been “only” 50 percent greater than the previous record for Iowa Democrats.

Given the Obama campaign’s excellent strategy and execution, as well as their virtually unlimited monetary resources in Iowa, what could other candidates have done to win the Iowa caucuses?

These are examples of the kinds of questions I’m interested in:

Should Hillary have used Bill more, or used him less?

Would it have helped Clinton or Edwards to go negative on Obama?

Were there better methods Clinton could have used to identify and turn out supporters?

Was there anything Richardson could have done in the summer to build on the bump he got from his television commercials in May?

Would Edwards have done better if his stump speech and advertising had focused on different issues?

Should Edwards have spent some money on advertising in the summer, when he slipped behind Clinton in the Iowa polls, rather than keeping his powder dry?

Feel free to post your insights about these and similar questions on this thread.

Alternatively, if you have thoughts you’d rather keep off the record, please e-mail them to me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com, or e-mail me your phone number and I will call you to chat. I will keep your views confidential.

click on this diary by Daily Kos user PocketNines on “Delegate Math: Where We Stand After Iowa Redux.”

By the way, if you wade through the more than 200 comments on that thread, you’ll see that PocketNines agrees with me–it would not be “cheating” or “stealing” for superdelegates to support Clinton even if Obama fininshes the primaries with more pledged delegates.

I agree with Obama supporters, however, that right now Obama can make the stronger argument to the superdelegates.

Each of the 99 counties in Iowa held their County Conventions yesterday and Barack Obama cleaned up the number of delegates that move on to the district and state conventions.

Here are the results from the conventions…

Barack Obama: 52.1%
Hillary Clinton: 31.5%
John Edwards: 16%

It looks like pretty much every Edwards delegate that went to a new candidate went to Obama.

The final delegate count after the conventions is Obama 23, Clinton 14, Edwards 6.

To put this into perspective, Sen. Hillary Clinton netted nine delegates out of Ohio after her big win there, while Obama netted 7 delegates in Iowa, while Clinton lost one.

Ronald Brownstein wrote an interesting piece for the National Journal called “Wider Net, Leakier Boat.” His argument is that Barack Obama potentially could put together a broader coalition than Hillary Clinton, but he also runs the risk of losing a lot more Democrats to McCain than Clinton would. Key excerpt:

In a recent Pew Research Center survey, for instance, Obama carried independents against McCain by 6 percentage points, while McCain carried them against Clinton by the same amount; the difference mostly reflected Obama’s stronger showing among independents earning at least $50,000 annually. Other surveys, such as a Quinnipiac University poll in the key battleground of Pennsylvania, have found that Obama also swipes more Republicans from McCain than Clinton does.

This all tracks Obama strengths familiar from the primaries. But primary-season trends more troubling for Obama are also persisting. In the national Pew survey, and in Quinnipiac polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama lost more Democrats to McCain than Clinton did. In the Pew survey, Obama struggled particularly among the same blue-collar white Democrats resisting him in the primaries: Fully 30 percent of white Democrats earning less than $30,000 a year preferred McCain over Obama. Clinton would lose only half as many of them to McCain, the polls indicate. In the Quinnipiac surveys, Clinton likewise outpolled Obama against McCain among white women without college degrees, a key general election swing group that has overwhelmingly preferred her in the primaries.

Findings like these help explain why many Democrats think Obama offers greater potential rewards as a nominee, but also presents greater risks. If Obama runs well, he seems more likely than Clinton to assemble a big majority and trigger a Democratic sweep — not only by attracting independents and crossover Republicans but also by increasing turnout among African-Americans and young people.

But if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition by losing seniors and blue-collar whites to McCain, principally on security issues. Clinton’s reach across the electorate may not be as long, but her grip on her voters could be firmer.

I don’t seem able to get this argument across to some of the Obama supporters I know. Yes, he does better among independents and Republicans than Hillary, but he could lose a lot more seniors, women and working-class whites (and Latinos, though Brownstein doesn’t mention them) to McCain.

Obama has eight months to figure out how to improve his standing among the demographic groups that have favored Hillary in the primaries.

Since Barack Obama’s supporters claim he is running a people-powered campaign, I’m surprised they are not more upset that he is working behind the scenes to derail any plan for Michigan and Florida to redo their primaries.

As you know, the DNC stripped both states of their delegates for moving their primaries up to January. No one campaigned in either state, and Hillary Clinton won both primaries, although in Michigan hers was the only name on the ballot, with supporters of Obama and other candidates voting “uncommitted.”

Given how close this primary campaign is, and how important Michigan and Florida are in the general election, it seems only logical to find some compromise that would allow delegates from those states to be seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer. I understand why Obama doesn’t want to accept the delegate allocations from the January primaries, because he didn’t campaign in either state.

However, I don’t see the rationale for his campaign ruling out re-votes in both states. Why does Obama fear taking a few weeks after Pennsylvania to campaign in Michigan and Florida so that Democrats can express their preferences? Money is not a problem for him–he has more cash on hand than Clinton.

One compromise that seems sensible to me is a mail-in election in both states, which would be much less costly than restaging an ordinary primary. But Obama’s co-chair in Michigan has ruled that out, claiming that

“It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security.”

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

I don’t understand how a mail-in ballot disenfranchises anyone. If anything, the experience of Oregon shows that it would lead to much greater participation.

And what justification is there for a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan? That is essentially the same thing as not counting Michigan voters at all.

But wait, it gets better: Obama is a co-sponsor of a bill in the U.S. Senate called

“The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act”, which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters […]

That’s right, Barack Obama, who thinks all states should allow mail-in voting, has suddenly decided in the middle of a tough primary that it would not be fair to let Michigan and Florida Democrats mail in ballots.

He appears to be afraid of losing high-turnout elections in those states. And no wonder: he seems to do a lot better in lower-turnout caucuses (in some states getting two, three or four times as many delegates as Clinton) than in large-state primaries.

In addition, the demographics of Florida (lots of seniors, Latinos and Jews) and Michigan (lots of working-class whites and Catholics) seem to favor Clinton.

Talk Left commenter Steve M (a Clinton supporter) linked to these comments at the Michigan Liberal blog, in which Obama supporters in Michigan criticize the stance his campaign is taking against a re-vote.

Does Obama want to go into a general-election campaign having demanded that Florida and Michigan residents not have their votes counted in the primary?

This may run a bit long so bear with me, please.

After supporting John Edwards in 2004, my mother decided to get really involved this cycle. Of course, being in a small town, they threw her in the deep end right from the start. She worked hard all summer and fall for Edwards and co-captained her small town precinct for him on caucus night. It was a very successful night for her, and Edwards carried the precinct and the county. Some of the precinct old-pros asked her to be an alternate delegate to the county convention and she accepted, not thinking she'd end up having to go.

Well, now she has to go. 

Since John Edwards is out of the running and every delegate on every level counts more than ever now, she doesn't know what to do. She knows that she technically doesn't have any obligation to a specific candidate, but she feels a moral obligation to represent the wishes of the people who caucused in her precinct. 

She feels, on a policy level, that Obama best matches the interests and concerns that brought her personally to Edwards in the first place. Obama as well came in a close second in her precinct. She's also been trying to ask some of the people she coaxed into caucusing who they'd like best, and the majority of them so far are leaning Obama (although several suggest Clinton, and still more suggest an Edwards vote regardless).  She's been reading a mailing from Obama this week, and expects one from Hillary as well. As you know, there's no word from Edwards. I should add that both the Obama and Hillary captains have been quite friendly to her since she was told to report to the convention.

She really wants to do right by the people she worked so hard to bring to caucus and those she's representing and she genuinely is unsure what to do. Should she vote for Edwards, even though he's out of the race? Should she vote for Obama, who seems to be most of the caucus-goers second choice? Should she vote for Hillary? 

I look forward to any advice or suggestions anyone has that I might pass along to her. Also, I'll be down there for spring break, so I'll see if I can't report on it in some fashion.

What Big Tent Democrat (an Obama supporter) said:

So we are celebrating “democracy” in Wyoming today. The “will of the people?” Not hardly. Another travesty of the Democratic Party.

Do you know that if 8,000 voters come out in Wyoming today to select their 13 delegates that means that 615 Wyomingians will be selecting a delegate to our national convention (8000 divided by 13.) By contrast, when 4.4 million Californians voted in their primary, they selected 370 delegates, which is to say 1 delegate for every 11,892 Californian who voted.

The will of the people? Please never mention that phrase again when discussing the pledged delegate count.

So, one participant in the Wyoming caucuses today has as much say over our nomination as 19 Californians who voted in the primary (or 8.6 Iowans who came to the caucuses in January).

But Obama supporters, you keep chanting about how the lead in pledged delegates is the only factor superdelegates should keep in mind when it’s time to vote for our nominee.

I have been critical of the Iowa caucus system, even though some elements of the system favored my candidate. I don’t like the electoral college, even though it is possible that someday a Democrat may win 270 electoral votes despite losing the nationwide popular vote.

Big Tent Democrat is one of very few Obama supporters who acknowledges that certain elements of our nominating system are undemocratic, even though those elements favor his candidate.

UPDATE: In the comments below that thread on TalkLeft, user waldenpond wrote:

I have a spreadsheet with votes/dels etc. I have dels for red state/blue state. For the GE Clinton would has 78 to Obama’s 100 red.  Clinton 815 to Obama’s 83 for blue.  I have by state the number of votes it took to get the dels.  I do it because I find it interesting, but I don’t think any of it means anything.  Raw vote against dels.. Clinton 9289 votes per del.  Obama 8553 votes per del.

Interesting. So Clinton has won more than 700 more popular votes per delegate than Obama has. If he does very poorly in PA and in any FL re-vote, he could well end up losing the popular vote despite retaining his lead in pledged delegates.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama could win the Democratic nomination based on his lead in pledged delegates, even though more voters in primaries and caucuses supported Hillary Clinton.

Texas is the latest state where Obama may win more delegates despite losing the popular vote (Nevada was another example.)

Also, Obama has gotten lots of extra delegates by running up the score in caucus states with comparatively low turnout compared to populous states such as Ohio, where Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.

Gordon Fischer writes at his blog, Iowa True Blue:

Matthews grills McAuliffe:  The Founder of the Democratic Party [Thomas Jefferson] said that a victory by a single vote is as sacred as a unanimous vote.  Do you agree?  McAuliffe couldn’t and wouldn’t answer.   Why?  Because he supports the Clintons and their entire strategy is based, indeed must be based, on ignoring the elected, pledged delegates.

My question to Obama supporters is this: do you see any problem with nominating the candidate who won fewer votes in all of the caucuses and primaries?

Gordon ignores the possibility that the pledged delegate leader could be the candidate who has won fewer votes from real, live citizens.

By the way, if we were only counting Democratic voters, Hillary would be even further ahead of Obama. A strong case can be made that Democrats should select our nominee, rather than Republicans and Democrats-for-a-day.

We are going to have a real problem getting to 270 electoral votes this November. Obama is still heavily favored to win the nomination, unless some bombshell scandal emerges during the next couple of months.

However, the rout in Ohio yesterday suggests that McCain would be heavily favored in that state against Obama. There are key elements of the Democratic base that are not sold on Obama.

Remind me again how he gets to 270 electoral votes without Florida (where he has virtually no chance against McCain) or Ohio. Kerry states plus Iowa and Missouri would not be enough, would it? I think he would also need Colorado, New Mexico or Virginia.

More worrying, Obama’s weakness in Ohio suggests to me that he may struggle to carry Pennsylvania in the general as well.