Slowly We Turn, Step By Step (Updated!)

You posting about media bias is too rich. How's Meghan? I think I'll go get myself a deep tissue massage.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It will be difficult for the Democrats to beat McCain, a stalwart statesman with many fine and commendable qualities. The Democrats much choose wisely. But, there comes a time to face reality. My friends, it's time to face up to the cold, hard facts: Hillary has already lost. Moreover, Obama will be the much stronger candidate, my friends.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

But, speaking seriously, and regarding the "space cadet" bit, aren't all three of the candidates that have been forced on us not fully qualified? Aren't there huge flaws in their policies? And, isn't the MSM not doing its supposed role of vetting the candidates?

Perhaps Scherer could kick the idea upstairs that sooner or later regular citizens are going to start doing the job the MSM refuses to do by asking the candidates real questions and then uploading videos of their answers to Youtube.

The MSM might be able to restrict our choices so far, but that doesn't mean it has to stay this way. Eventually the candidates will be vetted, and the MSM might consider that doing it themselves is better than watching as regular citizens show them how it's done.

I'd know that if I were in the business of basically misleading people that's the thing that would keep me up at nights, but I guess some people are unable to see very far into the future.

Yes, the MSM is happy to call the nomination for Obama at the exact moment when it becomes obvious that it's virtually impossible for him to beat McCain. If only the media really did have a Liberal bias...

As a Clinton supporter, I will be very upset if the Obama campaign wins this by avoiding re-votes in Michigan and Florida. What's amazing is that if Obama managed to tie Clinton for delegates in those contests it would be a victory for him, because it would make Clinton spend more money and it would remove any possibility of the current Michigan and Florida votes being counted. But obviously they think they can't even tie her. Which is really reassuring for their chances in November.

It's true that Obama will very probably win the nomination, but all of Axelrod's spinning can't change the fact that at this point a vote for Obama, whether cast by a Pennsylvania voter or a Superdelegate, is essentially a vote for John McCain.

Regardless of what you think about the Wright issue - and although I am disappointed by Obama's relationship with Wright, I still think he would be a way better President than McCain - it's clear that it will be a huge problem in the general election. The sad truth is that if you're running for President and you're not a white man, you're walking a tightrope. And Obama has fallen off. If Clinton had spent her Sundays with Andrea Dworkin for 20 years, she would have also fallen off.

The thing is Michael that these stories should have been written a month ago...after Wisconsin. The clintons have gotten a month of coverage in which most mathematical realities have been conveniently suspended so that the media can ring out some more ratings.

I was shocked by the honesty of the politico piece, confirming that the media is stringing this out for reasons of financial interest to begained in creating the illusion of a close race. They would never have done this for Obama.

It's kind of funny despite so many examples of media bias propping up Hillary, the media wrings its hands about whether they are being unfair to her.

So, Michael, I agree with you that it's a problem for Hillary that some in the media are growing tired of propogating the falshood that she has any meaningful path to the nomination. My hope is that this is not a pretext for some to proclaim Hillary as some sort of victim of the media again.

RKA, the media's bias is shown by their eagerness to change the subject away from the difficulties Obama faces in winning the Presidency, by focusing on the difficulties Clinton faces in winning the nomination. But yes, they are no longer biased towards Obama; They're biased towards McCain.

And it's illogical to suggest that you have to be a space cadet to think that maybe the Superdelegates actually don't want John McCain to win this election.

Rose,

Revotes in MI and FL would not be enough to get HIllary to a pledged delegate lead. They might get her to a pop vote lead..but even that is doubtful.

The gloom and doom you predict for Obama is simply not true. There are already signs in the polling that Obama is bouncing back after his Wright hit: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by 3...no difference...

But these polls are garbage anyway....they don't factor in the fact that McCain has gotten no incoming yet and Obama has had the kitchen sink thrown at his and is still pretty damn strong considering what the media have been doing to him over the past 2 weeks. With all due respect to Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they did not challenge Mccain to the degree HIllary challenged Obama.

What many don't get is that the Wright affair has pushed Obama to the floor of his support...his floor is 40-42% nationally...I think the effect of the Wright affair is to bring his ceiling down from about 62% to about 57% or so....but considering HIllary has a ceiling of 52%, we have to keep things in context here....

Obama is in much better shape in the general than people realize.....remember the adage...that which does not kill you only makes you stronger.

Obama's still standing...and he's going to keep getting stronger.

Hey, Rose, there is one thing I agree with you on....the media is biased for John Mccain....there's no doubt about that.

But your average political reporter's eight-year-running wet dream about the first straight talk express are not going to be enough to elect a candiate who a) admits he knowws nothing about the economy when we are headed into recession b) wants to be in iraq for 100 years c) is over 70 years old and needs Joe Lieberman to help him keep Iran, Iraq, and Al Qaeda straight.

Yeah, there are some people who won't want to vote for Obama....but many of them will be scared to vote for a McCain presidency after the vast left wing conspiracy gets done with him.

Given the realities you talk about, Hillary seems determined to see that Obama loses the general so that we'll regret not nominating her instead.

I think the biggest media tilt for Clinton in the service of continuing the race was in buying the Clinton line that she "won" Texas,when it was delegates not popular vote that counted.

Sorry, Michael, you're wrong and Harris/VandeWhatever are right. Hillary just doesn't have the delegates. It's that simple.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight. I'm for Obama but think Clinton is fine too, though I don't think Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson are fine, I'll admit.

It's a truism but no one but a Clinton could be treated as having a legitimate shot here when they just don't have the delegates.

And while I appreciate the high-minded quantum physics stuff, it's not a good analogy. It's kind of like saying that observing the score at the end of a football game determines the outcome. The delegate count does not exist in a wave state that only takes on a definite value when it is observed. Obama has more delegates, whether or not the media writes about it.

Schrodinger's cat isn't really apt. It's obvious the cat is dead in this case. But she's still very popular among many Democrats so the people whose job it is to describe the action pretend the box is still closed.

RKA,

"remember the adage...that which does not kill you only makes you stronger." - It's an old adage, but it's not true. The Swift Boat ads did not make Kerry stronger: http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2005/aug/borick.asp
(It's not a must-read, but I found it quite interesting. Can't we all imagine an attention getting ad on Wright?)

The fact that only 57% of Americans are sure that Obama does not share Wright's views is very bad news. And the problem is that the kitchen sink hasn't been thrown at him. Is there any chance that there won't be 527 ads on Wright? There is so much for the Republicans to exploit on this. Also, and this really surprises and saddens me, it's becoming clear that a lot of people are actually getting turned off by his eloquent and subtle speech. Unfortunately, this is nowhere near to being finished.

And yes, McCain does have big problems as a candidate. That's why I thought any Democrat could beat him. But the candidates are being judged in comparison to each other, and McCain is going to win that contest with Obama. Also, Bush in 2000 went all out against McCain. He has had the kitchen sink thrown at him.

About Texas, I think that the media wanted to call a winner, and they couldn't call it for Obama because the caucuses were so slow. And as an aside, the discrepancies between the caucus and primary results in Texas are amazing. When two voting systems produce results that are very different it's clear that there is a quality gap. And I'm guessing that the one with the secret ballot and flexible voting times produces the better results.

KathyR, if Clinton dropped out of the race right now, the Republicans would start launching their full attacks at Obama. And that would be much much more damaging than anything Clinton is doing. If she is merely delaying the inevitable, as some Obama supporters are saying, she is also delaying the inevitable Republican attacks against Obama. Why would the Republicans air 527 ads against Obama when the Superdelegates haven't voted yet?

And let's not forget that both of them will have to win with the help of Superdelegates. It's obvious that the math isn't decisive in this election, unlike in the winner-take-all no-superdelegate Republican election. Obama has more delegates, but he doesn't have enough.

Thanks for this great post, Michael Scherer, I desperately wish that I could responde, because your analogy is so worth talking about (the concept of "momentum" and what forces drive that)...

Right.

No way. I'm in bed with a 101 degree fever, and there's just no way for me to make coherent sentences to do this right now.

I'm so f--king irritated.

Anyway, please, Commenters, well, talk away, I'm so interested in reading your commentary on this.

Sorry. Wow, I'm f--ked. This sucks. I'm burning up here.

Sorry, carry on!

What? The media alters the outcome of what it reports?
Do you...do you think some of this could be deliberate?

This isn't news, Michael. 50% of the posts here are people screaming about how you guys try to control the various narratives.

The cat is still in the bag and the pundits will decree many superpostions before the supernova of the Democratic Convention occurs.

The real conundrum is how will these two very dynamic particles (Hillary) & (Obama)find the needed subject matter to bring the party together and to elucidate upon the issues that will truly matter to us all. This will truly be the a wonderful Event Horizon.

bradsbeatblog.blogspot.com

You're a space cadet.

Is it changing facts through observation when reporters call a football game when it becomes statistically impossible for one team to win?

Of course not. Reporters cannot alter the facts in this case.

It would be premature to say the race is over. Obama's campaign could implode. But, it's also fair, and good reporting, to discuss the statistical possibilities.

Check DailyKos for more info. They've been discussing this for weeks.

Stuart, take care of yourself. And I can relate because I'm just dying to violate the DailyKos boycott and comment on RKA's blog!

And about the quantum physics of all this, the MSM seems to be have a bias towards observing certain facts. To further TomT's analogy, they are deciding when the football game is finished, and they're biased in favor of Obama. Or maybe a better analogy would be that they are only reporting on the Obama-Clinton game and they're ignoring the Obama-McCain game. So the question is how is Schrodinger's cat effected by bias? And is there some other cat out there that no one is bothering to observe?

Brad, excellent points.

It's good to see KathyR admit it has never been about small "d" democracy but rather how Sen. Obama can spin his way to the nomination - the Super Delegates are not democratic and they must respect the will of the voters, the Texas primary should be about process not democracy.

Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate facing difficulty. Without the 313 delegates from Michigan and Florida casting votes during the first ballot Sen. Obama is going to be hard pressed coming up with the 2025 delegates he needs to win the nomination.

The rules are that to win the Democratic nomination someone has to receive a majority of total delegates - that's 2025 delegates. You don't win the nomination with a plurality of seated pledged delegates. At some point this will dawn on the those in the Obama inner circle and they'll change their tune on seating the Florida delegation. Just watch, they will wait and to be sure they are gaming the system to their maximum advantage and then come out with a new set of talking points.

If no one can win 2025 on the first ballot the unexpected could develop on the second ballot. Maybe delegates at the convention will realize that Al Gore would be a nominee who could unite the party and win in November. After all, the distance from Obama to Clinton is just as far as the distance between Clinton and Obama. And we've been told by Sen. Obama himself that a lot of his supporters wouldn't support Clinton in the general election.

Isn't it interesting the media has hopped on the Obama talking points that Clinton's situation is hopeless and for the good of the party she should drop out. The media wants to help the Democrats out? - I don't think so. People better wake up to how much this corporate media is in the tank for the Republican Party and devoted to advancing the corporate agenda.

Start listening to Obamabots like KathyR and you'll hear how they are all ready making excuses for a general election loss if Obama is nominated. For people like KathyR it is always about being in a self-righteous rage about something.

You republicans are scared to death of Obama!

Watching you guys shake in anticipation is to funny.

Michael,
It seems that you don't undertand the point of Schrödinger's thought experiment:
It's not that "by observing a fact, you determine the outcome" (which is a different quantum physics truism), but rather, that until the observation is made the system is in a superposition of multiple states, i.e., the cat is both dead and alive until it is observed. The observation itself does not determine the fate of the cat.

Stu, get well soon.

It is not "Obama talking points" that he has the delegate lead! Man, this is reality. Basic truth. Deal with it.

Stu, it sounds like all that hard East Village living has caught up with you. It usually takes me about three days of Zum Schneider before I start to feel ill when I'm down there.

CMike,
"Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate facing difficulty. Without the 313 delegates from Michigan and Florida casting votes during the first ballot Sen. Obama is going to be hard pressed coming up with the 2025 delegates he needs to win the nomination."

You are completely misunderstanding the situation. If Florida and/or Michigan delegates are added, the number required to win the nomination will increase! This doesn't help Obama unless he wins a majority of the added delegates.

KT here (yes, commenting on Scherer's post):

Stuart, get better!

Stu, tacos and beer are the key to getting over the flu. LES? Is the Filth Mart still around on 13th? Say hi to Drea.

Malcolm,

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check on that but I remember the 2025 number from way back.

Michael: I was encouraged by your headline ("Slowly we turn, step by step") and was breathlessly awaiting the Three Stooges reference in your post...I guess you meant to imply that the MSM responds brainlessly to any hint of controversy in much the same way as Moe did to the utterance of "Niagara Falls!" If that is the case, then you hit the nail on the head: the narrative needs to be narrated and the undecidednessness of the dem process is gumming up the works.
But, while we're venting, let's take another shot at a sacred cow of the conventional wisdom: Why is it automatically "bad for the dems" that the nomination is still in limbo and the GOP race is not. If memory serves, the "unity" found in 2004, 2000, 1988, 1984 and 1980 did not ensure a dem presidential victory.
Can we get to the point where we realize "what does not kill us, makes us stronger" and take heart that the eventual nominee will have a BETTER chance in November BECAUSE of the struggles of March & April? (end rant)

If anyone thinks Clinton can win this, play with this delegate calendar:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

And read this Jon Chait essay:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

They tell you everything you need to know.

By the way, if the press over-dramatizes the race (claiming there *is* one when there isn't), that could screw things up too. Then we might have an eventual nominee damaged by a desperate primary candidate who was aided by a drama-loving press. (I think that's one of the things Chait is afraid of in his piece.)

Atrios pointed out that if the tables were switched, and it was Obama who was the long shot, the press would have written him off quite a while ago.

(Get well, Stuart!)

"This leaves reporters in the political equivalent of that weird Schrödinger's cat quantum physics conundrum: By observing a fact, you determine the outcome."

You got it backwards. The outcome determines the facts in quantum mechanics. Not very relevant to the paradox you mentioned, though.

I meant "delegate counter..."

Someone needs to whisper to "Billary" that she is done!

http://OsiSpeaks.com

Rose,

John Kerry let himself be swift boated by being a passive aggressive pansy who let the thing fester for weeks without responding.

Obama showed us how it is done. He put himself before the media continuously, he made a major speech, and he got back control of the story. The only reason that this drew any blood was because of how over-the-top the media got with this....but karma strikes back...even people at Fox News are starting to get pissed at what some are trying to do to Obama...like Chris Wallace.

Think about this folks....HIllary lost more ground from her drivers license flip flop in the Philly debate than Obama lost in the Wright affair despite the fact that the feeding frenzy was ten times worse with Wright than with the Drivers License flip flop fallout....HIlly bobbed and weaved for 2 weeks before deciding that she was against drivers licenses...and thus began her descent.... Hillary blew a 20 point lead while Wright appears to be a much smaller hit for Obama. That is amazing if you think about it. Hillary's toughness in the face of fire is one big myth...her campaign has been a house of cards....the idea that she would hold up against the republicans is silly....they held all their fire on her the whole primary hoping to wait until she was the nominee to unleash it all. Hillary has gotten somany passes that would end the moment she was the nominee. There is a lot of chutzpah in HIllary and the Media asserting that HIllary would have no baggage in a general....there is about 10 times more swift-boatable material on Hillary than Obama...just because the media have not been reporting on it don't mean its not there.

If HIllary can be wounded so badly from a pretty garden variety media feeding frenzy and Obama can be this strong after an all out assault like he just experienced in which the media gave millions of dollars in free media to the anti-Obama forces, much more than they ever gave the swift boaters...then that should tell everyone who will be the stronger general election candidate.

Stuart,

It looks like you opened that package I sent you.

Mission Accomplished!

But because now I am starting to feel a little guilty, here is a present for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFWQlyvVxLQ

Malcolm,

You are completely right and I am wrong about that 2025 being half of a number that included the 313 Florida and Michigan delegates.

Thanks everydoby (KT too

I 'm in hell, see you soon)

It's true that Obama will very probably win the nomination, but all of Axelrod's spinning can't change the fact that at this point a vote for Obama, whether cast by a Pennsylvania voter or a Superdelegate, is essentially a vote for John McCain.

You are high.

That is all.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form." - Albert Einstein

Nice spin on this article - Too bad you left a little thing, like math, out of it. You linked the politico article but forgot to quote the most important stuff - the realistic odds

"But let’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

There are 566 pledged delegates up for grabs in upcoming contests. Those delegates come from Pennsylvania (158), Guam (4) North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15).

If Clinton won 60 percent of those delegates, she would get 340 delegates to Obama's 226. Under that scenario — and without revotes in Michigan and Florida — Obama would still lead in delegates by 1,632 to 1,589.

The only remote possibility of a win in delegates would come if revotes were held in Florida and Michigan — which, again, would take a political miracle. If Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in both states, she would win 188 delegates and Obama would win 125. Clinton would then lead among pledged delegates, 1,777 to 1,757.

The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon."

She's complete toast

Another reason why she is complete toast comes down to what it always comes down to - money.

Hillary for all of her bluster, is completely horrible with her campaigns finances:
"Despite a strong month of fund-raising in February in which she brought in $35 million, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished the month essentially in the red, once her campaign’s outstanding debts are factored in, as well as her personal loan, according to filings submitted late last night to the Federal Election Commission.
After spending about $31 million in her efforts to keep up with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton finished February with more than $33 million in cash on hand, but $21.5 million of that is earmarked exclusively for the general election, leaving her with $11.7 million for the primary.

Mrs. Clinton, however, loaned her campaign $5 million earlier this year and she listed $8.7 million in debts to various vendors, making clear why she has not yet paid herself back from her loan.

It should be noted, however, that Hillary isn't obliged to repay the $5 million debt to herself. Nonetheless, even factoring in that, once you subtract the other debts her cash on hand number would be in the neighborhood of $3 million.

By contrast, Obama has over $30 million on hand for the primary.

Here's where this really hurts: With the super-delegates. The Clintons' fundraising prowess has been one of the factors convincing the super-dels that this race isn't over and that they should wait out the contest. Revelations like this one could make it a good deal tougher to make this case."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_campaign_in_the_red.php

This isnt the first campaign that has been terribly mishandled as far as money is concerned. Take for instance her race for the senate and her totally loyal, but incompetent campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:
Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton’s Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration—and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary’s inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle/2

That is just what we need when our economy is in shambles. A President who cannot handle money and appoints loyal incompetents to important positions. Oh wait! We have a president like that!

I agree with those who are saying that there is almost no realistic way for Hillary to win the nomination at this point. Somewhat sad, because she apparently thinks she has a good shot, but true.

This carnage over party rules might be the way that the Democratic party self-destructs before November (besides the rest of the infighting between Obama and Clinton), which IMO is sad because the choice really should be quite simple: if all the delegates have been apportioned, then whoever is ahead should win the nomination. As far as I can see, the only reason this debate is prolonged is because Clinton desperately wants to win in the face of...well...facts.

Anyway, though, I just wanted to ask this question. Why would a political party that has democracy in the name tack on such a patently undemocratic 11th hour method of selecting a nominee? Apparently, he superdelegates are essentially there to guard against the possibility of a candidate outside the party mainstream from winning the nomination ("outside the mainstream" is apparently decided by Democratic bigwigs). So in other words, the superdelegates are there so the privileged few of the party can overturn...the choice that the voters who chose those few selected. How on earth could anybody institute and live with a near-despotic method like that and pretend to be completely democratic?

In fact, how on earth could party leaders stick something like that onto the primary machine and not foresee some sort of extremely predictable controversy that could potentially cost them the presidency?

Everybody knows that Obama has won. As far as I am concerned, that is a wonderful thing. A modern, liberal, inspiring president of the US - how about that, world! I wonder how long ago, however, he woukd have been shouted into conceding the contest if the positions were reversed.

BTW, Hillary knows, too. But it is hard to let go of something you have probably been promised and working towards since being "the wife of Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas". One can truly sympathize. But as Aaron Sorkin put it through Toby Ziegler: "There are no ´turns´!". Indeed.

Actually Yoshi, the superdelegates are there primarily to do what they did in 1984, end the nomination process when it was clear that a winner had been selected.

But there are now many more of them than there were then, and it doesn't work when the race is this close.

The nomination process is not an election. If it were an election there would be one national primary, and we'd be done with it. It's structure the way it is for good reasons.

And, no, this close a contest was not inevitable. Without the superdelegates, we'd be sure to proceed to, or nearly to, the convention.

The problem here is there is no satisfactory second prize for Clinton. He can't offer the VP slot, no cabinet slot is good enough, she doesn't need a key speaking slot at the convention, and she's not running in 2016. This is her only shot.

As for concerns that racist America is going to vote for McCain, I don't buy it. He has plenty of time to turn that around, and plenty of time to show McCain in all his incoherent, cranky glory.

Speaking of which, Bill Maher discusses McCain at the end of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJhWXq6slec

after the Cool Ranch Extreme Caffeine-free cherry chocolate Dr. Pepper

No matter who you like or dislike, who ever it may be Hillary or Obama... WE must Stand Together!!! and Vote Democratic

I am a Obama supporter, but if Hillary is the pick I will do what's right for the nation and vote for her.

I have a daughter and I do not want her to grow up with another Bush.

We need to start thinking and stop letting the Media divide us. If I have to post this in every blog, every comment box to get my message out there-- then I will ....

STOP HATING ON EACH OTHER--- AND THINK!!! Vote Democratic NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

The past three weeks of double team lynching, in the next few weeks, will have a price that is going to be appearant to all, in my opinion.

Hardball politics has it's downside - especially when the practicer went down 91-9 with the Black vote in traditionally Democratic strongholds before this latest filth unfolded.

Ignorance has it's price. And it WILL be heavy.

If Barak's support implodes, which I don't think it will, and Hillary rakes him in this last leg of the primary, she might take the nomination. But it won't matter.

The Black vote, whose relationship with the Democrats has now been severly damaged, are going to bolt at the very first opportunity.

This political lynching is likely the last straw, and with what Hillary has done, 2004 will be the last cycle in which the Dems can count on these voters.

With Hillary, they will lose in November - and that is WITHOUT doubt.

A core base has been obliterated in this bitter fray.

The Black vote is NOT going to turn out, and after the Wright fiasco, and, regardless of any of your sentiment about him, that vote will no longer be available to Democrats.

As a matter of fact, there MAY be, to some extent, a crossover into McCain's camp IF he can curb the hate speech from the right, or at least from operatives in his own campaign - because there ARE consevatives within this block.

In addition, the endemic voter blocks for Obama will disappear - further damaging Dem hopes.

Mark my words if you don't believe me. Payback for the last three weeks' double-team is going to be steep, and it will be devastating.

Ignorance, as a practice, is going to exact it's due...

scalD:

As much as I would agree with you, I'm sorry, but the damage has been done.

That is the scuttlebutt from the people I know, and it makes a lot of sense.

Hillary would have done better to stand by Obama and both attack the hate from the right, which, emboldened by this nasty, has been unrelenting. The fight between Dems has encouraged it to the point where people appearantly can post death threats on Fox's blogs despite their cuationary, but hollow, caveat on posting there.

I think Hillary, in her effort to gain the nomination, honestly felt that hardball was the way to go, but, in this case, she has not only shot herself in the foot, she's shot her foot clean off.

The road to victory for Hillary Clinton was paved by the rants and ravings of Obama's pastor. Digging up old bones never solved anything except on Television's Cold Case drama. Americans are definately ready to put racism in the past once and for all, but not in this manner. Pennsylvania votes soon, and knowing my neighbors all hard-working middle class white democrats, electing a pro-Black Liberation extremist, pro-Socialism, and pro-Muslim supporter is not who they want in the White House. Independents and Reagan Democrats will flock to McCain like seagalls to a fish fry. A double digit lead in our local polls shows Hillary winning. This momentum will carry enough weight to sway those undecided Super-dels to her side once and for all.

I rest my case.

Rustbucket:

However, I have an Illinois shaped cornflake you might be interested in:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/22/corn.flake.ap/index.html

I'll let you have it for $500!

53_2:

You keep it, if anyone was stupid enough to buy that off of eBay, deserves it. Invite Obama over for breakfast after the convention, he won't have anything to do then.

It's ok rustbucket, it's too dark for you anyway...

Enjoy your "victory"...

BTW, when are you going on Hannity & Combes?

Even if Hillary wins by double digits in Pennsylvania, unless we're talking like 30 points, it's not going to help her much.

53_2:
On second thought, don't eat that cornflake, turn it into a lapel pin for your man Obama. He seems to be missing his American Flag pin.

I'm guessing he lost it when he went to get spiritual counseling from Louis Farrakhan, and laid it down on Pastor Wright's desk.

JJ:

I'm disgusted. People like Rustoleum here sound more like a bigot buying Swiftboat candies than any real Democrat anyway.

I'm discouraged. These guys have NO idea just what kind of "victory" they will celebrate...

Hillary supporters can now celebrate with glee on the top of the proverbial hill, but when they look at the landscape they've conquered with their hardball victory, it looks like:

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945, 11:11 AM

...
...

The evil fester,

bubbling languidly, with creamy slowness, fetid.

A sucking splatter as the beast moves forward, slowly, stupidly

to lower it's head for yet another drink, seeing eyes, but unseeing brain

nutrition, in small amounts...

the howls in the distance, behind foul fog

snarls

looking unknowingly at the wan sun, with secure stupidity as a spot of light moves, where none should be

a failure in life, but unkowing, as eyes, uncomprehending, see it brighten

another yank at the fetid undergrowth, nutrition.

A shadow, vague, lopes off amongst the weakly shimmering fog ahead

incomprehension as shadows race, eyes close as light intrudes, too bright to see with, then

silence.

53_2:

Gee, just because I am not supporting a neo-Socialistic, so far left extremist I am going to crash and burn no record politician, I am a swiftboater? Sorry just pointing out fact.

Wakeup Bubba, all the spin you feebly attempt to put on Obama's stealth campaign is not working anymore.

The truth is out, and NObama can only make more feeble attempts at trying to distract everyone from this with his basketball brackets. Oh, and calling old grannie a "Typical White Person", now THAT really was a brilliant move too!!

I seem to remember that Obama supporters all firmly saying that the super delegates MUST follow the "will of the people" and the popular vote of the constituency they represent. How come Richardson doesn't need to?

Although this isn't about McCain, Michael got several paragraphs in today's Media Matters column by Jason Foser.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803210010?f=h_column

Time's Michael Scherer actually claimed the McCain-Hagee connection has gotten extensive media coverage: "With rare exception, the press errs on the side of making a big deal out of anything that can be considered a 'scandal.' McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage."

"Lots" of "network news coverage"? The names "Hagee" and "McCain" have been mentioned in the same news report exactly one time on ABC -- in a comment by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. CBS has covered the matter in two brief reports. NBC has mentioned the endorsement one time, in a report that referred only vaguely to the fact that "some of the televangelist's public remarks have offended Catholics."

"Lots" of "negative newspaper" coverage? The New York Times has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in two articles. Both times, the Hagee mention was buried at the end of an article about another topic; combined, the two passages totaled only 251 words. Neither made any mention of Hagee's comments about Katrina, or gays, or women. The Washington Post has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in only two brief blurbs, only one of which noted any controversy surrounding the endorsement -- and, like the Times, that one mentioned only Hagee's comments about Catholics. Post columnist E. J. Dionne did briefly criticize McCain for not distancing himself from Hagee -- but he, too, ignored Hagee's comments about Katrina, gays, and women.

Scherer's claim that "McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage" was simply false; the endorsement has been all but ignored by the three networks and the nation's two most important newspapers.

By contrast, a Nexis search for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright" reveals 22 hits ... in The Washington Post alone. And 25 more in The New York Times (22 for "Obama and Jeremiah A. Wright" and three for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright.") And 15 hits in the NBC transcript database -- all since March 14. Fifteen more in the CBS database since March 14. Twenty-two more in the ABC database since March 13. That is "lots of negative coverage." And that is a huge imbalance.

While Scherer falsely claimed that McCain's ties to Hagee have gotten "lots" of attention, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough took another approach: claiming that McCain's embrace of Hagee is utterly unremarkable.

****

The very end of the column is particularly interesting as to the personal vs political relationship among Hagee / McCain and Wright / Obama.

It doesn't matter rustoleam.

Have it your way.

As a matter of fact, rusty, why don't you plant your victory flag over there?

Yes, by THAT pile of rubble...

"One man's trash, is another man's gold mine". Confucious 483 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

Well, like I said, if you honestly think that Hillary has a chance of winning without the Black vote, go ahead.

Plant your flag over there. Yes, by THAT pile of "treasure"...

Joshi, yes the current electoral system is ridiculous. But Superdelegates aren't the only problem. The Texas primaries and caucuses produced very different results, and the DNC needs to get rid of caucuses. It's true that Clinton will have to overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates with the help of undemocratically selected Superdelegates to win the nomination, but it's also true that Obama's lead in pledged delegates is because of his success in the only quasi-democratic caucuses. The DNC needs to adopt a simple 50 state primary system, although I think a national primary would put too much emphasis on money.

RKA, thank you for reminding me of exhibit A in the media's bias against Clinton! I probably would have forgotten otherwise... Everything you're saying about the driver's license thing is true, but Obama also couldn't answer the driver's license question. In a debate that was two weeks later where everyone watching knew the question was going to be asked. Seriously, if there was one question to prepare for, that was it. But the MSM made sure that his gaffe wasn't a story. So this episode doesn't really show that Clinton is vulnerable to being swiftboated (and it's not really a Swift Boat issue anyway); it shows that the media was really biased towards Obama. I agree with you that the media is now biased towards McCain, but the best way they can help McCain now is by helping Obama.

"John Kerry let himself be swift boated by being a passive aggressive pansy who let the thing fester for weeks without responding." - Actually he was just short of money. The whole John Kerry is weak thing is a bit of an urban legend. Obviously Obama has the finances to fight back. But the truth is that Obama and Clinton are both inherently more vulnerable to character attacks than Kerry. The very fact of Obama's beautiful speech on race being necessary - and rather ineffective - shows that, as does the MSM's total acceptance of Obama's use of sexist language. Right now all we know about how the Wright issue is playing is that a lot of polls, especially in battleground states, show a big drop in Obama's support, particularly among Independents. And that's with only the MSM coverage. Those numbers are going to drop a lot more when the 527 ads start.

Another advantage that both Clinton and McCain have over Obama is that voters already know a lot about them. We're all more likely to believe lies about a stranger than someone we know well.

But maybe the biggest problem Obama faces is finding a new rationale for his candidacy. Since the start of his campaign he has been saying that he can unite the country, and that argument has been very effective with voters. I can't count the number of people I know who say that they like Clinton or McCain, but they're voting for Obama because he can move people past the old divisions. What are those voters going to do when Obama's unfavorables skyrocket? If you're an Independent or a Reagan Democrat looking for someone to unite the country, you're probably going to vote for McCain, who does have a record of bipartisanship. It's very unclear how much support a divisive Obama will get. This is why Obama's candidacy has always reminded me of a stock market bubble. It needs mass support to stay strong.

Rose:

Not being critical, but have you considered the consequences of this so called "victory"?

Do YOU think without the Black vote, and the other baggage she carries, along with the loss of Obamas endemic voter blocks, she has a chance?

Really? You are talking of nearly 15% of the Democratic vote that hasn't figured in your figuring...

mr. scherer,

mr. mccain has officially broken the spending limits in the public financing system.
in fact, this is a violation of the law.
are you going to write anything about it?
or, are you, as you've done with any and everything, this disasterous week even, going to simply ignore anything that you cannot somehow spin to reflect positively on mccain.
if you do not even write about the issue, an important one, by any calculation, it will be another, shameful indication of your incredible, unprofessional posture towards the mccain campaign.
you are supposed to REPORT, not protect on the mccain campaign.

I thought you were on the McCain beat, Scherer. As such, you ought to read that Media Matters piece linked to above. Here are some great quotes from Media Matters' excellent research staff that you can use in your next piece on McCain. That's your beat now, right?

///
John Hagee and Rod Parsley

Given intense media scrutiny of controversial comments made by a religious leader with ties to Barack Obama, many -- including Media Matters -- have wondered when news organizations will devote the same attention to John McCain's ties to Rod Parsley and John Hagee.

In February, shortly before the Ohio primary, John McCain stood with Rod Parsley in Cincinnati, declaring him a "spiritual guide." Parsley returned the compliment with his endorsement of McCain, who he praised as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." Parsley has written that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [of Islam] destroyed." As David Corn has explained, "Parsley, who refers to himself as a 'Christocrat,' is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis." He has suggested that the U.S. government was complicit in facilitating black genocide.

McCain won another key endorsement in February: John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.

Hagee has said of Hurricane Katrina, "[W]hen you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Hagee later defended his comment by saying, "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. ... there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. ... I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Hagee has written, "I encourage every person who has biblical beliefs to contact their congressman and their senator on a regular basis and implore them to pass this constitutional amendment recognizing only the marriage between a man and a woman. If we fail to achieve this, the gates of hell will be opened. It will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Hagee once announced plans to hold a "slave sale" to raise money. According to the San Antonio Express-News, "Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin ... The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone' and ended with 'Make plans to come and go home with a slave.' " And Hagee has written "Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist" and "only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man. ...The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home."

According to Hagee, McCain actively sought his endorsement.
////

Some pretty hypocritical stuff you've pointed out, James.

I'm afraid that the country will have to wait a while before the racial divide can really be healed. The country failed, the Black vote was tossed under the train, and victory in Septermber?

It might be just about as hollow as a text balloon in a comic strip...

Hollow indeed. I'm not trying to heal the racial divide, but trying to get the Time person on the McCain beat to cover McCain. After that, I'll try healing the racial divide. May be an easier job.

Jayackroyd:

That's not what I've been hearing from most of the analysis of superdelegate powers. According to you, the only reason to have superdelegates is to seal the majority of the leading candidate, but this raises two questions:

1) Why not just give the nomination automatically to the candidate with the most delegates at the end?
2) It is clear that the Democratic Party leadership intended for the superdelegates to have as much autonomy as possible in choosing who to put their supervotes on. When they can pick any candidate they want, switch votes up until the convention, and ignore both their constituency AND pledged delegate counts, I don't see an "intended to seal the nomination" clause. They could in all rights overturn a leading candidate, in effect overturning the people.

Also, since you say the primaries aren't "elections," does that mean they can be completely undemocratic if they want to?

Rose:

I agree the caucus system is also undemocratic, and adds an unneeded layer of complexity.

Yoshi,
Are you a member of the Democratic Party? Because if you aren't a member of my political party, while you may have opinions about how we go about nominating our candidate, your opinions aren't worth very much; nor are the opinions of the other people who aren't member of my party. The rules for nominating our candidate have been laid out for some time now. You had a chance to join my party and have your input at that time. Meanwhile, we will go about nominating our candidate in the way that we intend, regardless of whether people who aren't members of my party think it is "democratic" or not. Okay? Your chance to participate in "democracy" comes at the general election, not with the nominating process of the Democratic Party.

I don't know, James. Maybe Yoshi has a point. Maybe we can learn from the republicans about how to choose presidents: let the Supreme Court decide. You have to admit, it's much simpler. And, really, is there nothing that we should not trust Scalia and Thomas to decide?

It isn't all that complicated. Here's a good post from Josh Marshall regarding the emotional infantilism seen on these and other threads WRT the Democratic Party nominating process.

///That's not to say that these small differences are reasons to choose one of the candidates over the other. But to threaten either to sit the election or vote for McCain or vote for Nader if your candidate doesn't win the nomination shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance. If this really is one's position after calm second-thought, I see no other way to describe it.///
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184975.php

Read the whole thing, Maybe it'll bring a few people back down to earth.

Yoshi--

http://kroydblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-democrats-nomination-process.html

I've already written a comment about the nomination process, and how one needs to think about questions like yours. I've cleaned it up a little, and posted it as the blog entry above.

The short answer is that the nominating process has to serve multiple, sometimes conflicting, objectives. Any nomination process will be unsatisfactory in some ways

wrt:

1) You could indeed award the nomination to the candidate with the plurality of delegates. But this may not be the best candidate to win the presidency--which is the primary objective of a party's nominating process. Also, it is, by Arrow's Impossibility theorem, there is no voting process that can choose from three candidates and also adhere to some simple charcteristics that would seem to be obviously necessary for a voting process.

In practical terms, you could end up nominating a Jesse Jackson or George Wallace, a candidate strongly favored by 40 percent of the party, and strongly disliked by the remaining 60 percent.

2) I was talking about a two person race when I said this. I don't have the link right now, but the guy doing delegate counting for Mondale had helped devised this system, and said that was indeed the goal.

But the need for unencumbered discretion is also part of the design. I think that harks back to the Eagleton fiasco. The superdelegates offer a way to remove a candidate who, though leading in delegate count, turns out to have had electroshock therapy or spent 80,000 dollars wiring money to off-shore accounts to pay for hookers. Clinton is indeed trying to ask the delegates to consider Obama's candidacy to be flawed in this way. But since her claim rests, essentially, on his being black, it will not gain much traction.

Now, if this were a three person race, which could also happen, then the superdelegates would pick the candidate. Again, by Arrow's theorem, there's no reason to pick the candidate with a plurality. It's easy to imagine a scenario where Edwards came to the convention in 3rd place, with Obama and Clinton ahead, both terribly bloodied. The superdelegates might well pick Edwards with one or the other at the bottom. Something like that happened with Harding, although without the involvement of voters.

On 2.

Ah, I see I addressed 2) above. The idea of the Superdelegates is manifold. It's to prevent a brokered convention, to shorten the nomination process when there is a clear winner who hasn't picked up a majority of pledged delegates. to have a mechanism for resolving a three way race, for dumping a candidate who implodes and other reasons as well.

Also, there are good reasons for caucuses, as I argue in the link above. The state and national party conventions are not only about picking a presidential candidate. In fact, in the current system, it is the least important function of the conventions.

You guys:

One of the thing Yoshi hasn't done is participate in Obama's lynching. So maybe he might be a Republican, but he's a better breed of human than I've seen from this so-called crop of "Democrats".

PS. I took my shot at trying to promote understanding, and of course I should have known I was tilting at windmills. Oh, well...

But at least I can take this away from it:

We backed Joe up twice. Not once, twice. And this is a guy that has appearently learned something about race from his time before this as a pundit. You hear him ack us...

Also, we were bucking to get Joe to acknowledge right wing hate speech, and we got part of what we wanted.

On the other hand, maybe I'd like to see Obama as a third party candidate. I've had enough of "hardball" and "swiftboat" anyway.

My vote: Space Cadet

Yoshi's always been a very productive and thoughtful contributor, 53_2.

Yoshi's always been a very productive and thoughtful contributor, 53_2.

(BTW, does anybody else think of prostate drug ads when they read Michael first clause? Or is just that I watch too much sports?)

he has been, so has James and RKA. Even stuart. We all have our differences, but I hate to say it, they shot the dog...

Hillary does not have a chance, no chance whatsoever, to mend fences with the Black vote. And that's even if he accepts a VP post, which I doubt he will accept.

She went racial and tacitly accepted a racially based "guilt by association" attack in concert with Republicans, though without communicating with them.

They know which way the bread was buttered. It was supposed to be McCain vs. Hillary all along, and he spoiled it.

So, in concert with Fox playing sweet hate music in the backround McCain drove the train while Hillery tossed him, and the Black vote, under it.

For all those who say "'Hillary is out of the race and should quit", I can only be thankful you weren't coaching Eli Manning and told him "You and your team are behind and there's really no chance to win". He wouldn't be sporting a Superbowl ring and Hillary certainly has every chance to win too.

She's the best candidate and has my vote.

Of course they want her out before the big state of Penn., because if Obama loses, which if Hillary stays in seems likely, he looks weaker. And then if he loses in W. Virginia, weaker still, but hey we've got things to do. Heaven forbid people should be able to vote, and you know have an opinion. I keep forgetting it's really up to the villagers to tell us who our candidates are and when we've had enough of that silly democracy stuff.

jackaroyd, click the link on "growing problem"

Duh. Well, I guess I didn't need to, after all.

Speaking of Stuart, are you feeling better? Post something when you get a chance so your imitation trolls don't get too restless!

53_2, jayackroyd, thanks for being cool with me. :) Thanks to jayackroyd again for your explanation of superdelegates and caucuses.

I can see how the use of superdelegates could probably be justified in the event of, say, pre-"Kristen" Spitzer running and then blowing his cover after receiving the nomination. What I don't see as reasonable now is the notion that the superdelegates will be picking between two candidates based on (apparently) their perceptions of each candidate's "electability." I feel that the public is capable of dissecting an intangible like that by themselves. Now in your Arrow scenario with Edwards, how close are you placing the hypothetical delegate count?

James:

Yes, I'm a Republican. And yeah, as you pointed out, my opinion doesn't really influence your party at all. That wasn't my goal in the first place, though.

RKA:

The 2000 election was not snatched from the jaws of Democratic victory by the Supreme Court.

Yoshi--

I am not saying that superdelegates are the right answer. I'm simply saying that those are the mechanisms that have been chosen, that there are good reasons to have chosen this system, and that they are better, in some ways, and worse, in others, in having this stuff settled in smoke filled rooms.

The way Republicans have dealt with this (they think) is winner take all primaries. This makes more sense for them than for democrats. Republican power structures are hierarchical. Democratic power structures are by voting blocs. What you're seeing, in the netroots movement, is an assertion that they control a rank and file voting bloc of otherwise unaffiliated constituents. That's how you acquire power in the democratic party.

(I say "they think" above because winner take all primary systems are susceptible to regional candidacies, and, as I alluded to, the worst case scenario for party unity and a clean convention is a three candidate split along regional lines, like, in the republican case, the racist south, the religious right midwest and the libertarian mountain west.)

What I don't see as reasonable now is the notion that the superdelegates will be picking between two candidates based on (apparently) their perceptions of each candidate's "electability."

When you frame this as something other than a Mark Foley type incident, you're missing the point. Or, rather, you're internalizing Clinton talking points. The superdelegates really cannot reverse the pledged delegate count's choice, even if they believe that Clinton is the more electable candidate, without a very compelling reason.

If you looked at my list of goals, you'll have seen references to growing the party and building unity. A decision to nominate Clinton over a black candidate with more pledged delegates would be a betrayal of the party's most loyal, and least rewarded, voting bloc. There is no way that they can reject that bloc's candidate on "electability" issues.

That's the hardball way to look at it.

My way of looking at it is that we have a golden opportunity to confront these issues. Obama, by his heritage AND decisions to engage with American black community (with which he has ZERO hereditary connection) can uniquely pursue a dialog that is long overdue.

Thanks for your information on the Democratic power structure. It explains a lot about the choice to retain this particular nominating process.

"When you frame this as something other than a Mark Foley type incident, you're missing the point. Or, rather, you're internalizing Clinton talking points. The superdelegates really cannot reverse the pledged delegate count's choice, even if they believe that Clinton is the more electable candidate, without a very compelling reason."

Yes, this is implausible. But it is not impossible according to the rules IMO. Since the superdelegates have complete autonomy, it seems they could turn the tables on Obama if they felt like it. Granted, it would be something of political suicide, as you said, but the possibility is there given the backroom nature of the process.

I guess you're counting on the superdelegates' good judgment to make the process work?

This is pretty much how a lot of "typical white people" are viewing the Obama speech. He actually has a huge problem in a general election campaign.

From today's Staten Island Advance.

Sen. Barack Obama's address on race in America
The speech was more about damage-control than defining his candidacy
Sunday, March 23, 2008
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- After more than a year of campaigning as the color-blind candidate of unity, hope and change, Barack Obama last week decided to address the topic of race in America.

And why not? Even such a weighty topic as race relations is no doubt preferable to dealing with the anti-American hate speech of his close family friend and now-former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama's "bridging the divide" address in Philadelphia last week, despite its gauzy haze of uplifting language and thought-provoking passages, was as much about damage-control as it was about race.

Obama knew that Wright -- who, among other things, blames American foreign policy for triggering 9/11 and said that the white-dominated U.S. government invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against blacks -- had dealt a serious blow to his campaign.

And the timing couldn't have been worse: Obama was already lagging behind Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, the next red-letter stop on the presidential primary calendar.

A CBS poll last week showed that a third of voters who'd heard some of Wright's comments said they made them feel more negative about Obama.

The day after the speech was given, a Zogby poll showed that Obama's 14-point national lead over Hillary had evaporated to a "statistically insignificant" three points. Obama was also shown trailing GOP candidate John McCain in the same poll.

By the end of the week, Gallup was showing Mrs. Clinton with a national lead over Obama.

If CBS, Zogby and Gallup saw the deteriorating trend, surely Obama's internal pollsters did too.

A blowout loss to Hillary in Pennsylvania, a state the Democrats absolutely must hold in the general election, might give some nervous, undecided super-delegates all the justification they'd need to run to Mrs. Clinton.

Especially so if the loss were to be seen as being attributable to doubts Mrs. Clinton and others have raised about Obama's judgment and ability to lead, doubts that Obama himself has help fuel through the Wright controversy and his own bungled handling of the NAFTA issue before the Ohio primary earlier this month.

That's why Obama would take the "politically risky" move of tackling race in America. And that's precisely why the whole thing rang just a little hollow.

Why address race now? Why not after the incendiary South Carolina primary, for example, when Bill Clinton's stirred up a racial hornet's nest that helped spur Obama to victory? Failing that, why address race at all?

Because, like any other good politician, Obama needed to do something to shift the focus away from an issue that's hurting him.

Meanwhile, we had to chuckle at Obama railing against Wright's comments being played in endless loops on YouTube.

As if we haven't been inundated by all those celebrity-drenched, hip-hop campaign videos of Obama's on the very same Web site.

And as if there's any way to misinterpret or take it out of context when Wright says things like "God damn America" and calls America the "U.S. of K.K.K. A."

Not to rip the scab off the "Isn't-Obama-Muslim?" controversy, but that's exactly the kind of extremist talk you'd expect to hear coming out of a radical Islamic madrasa, aimed solely at reinforcing ethnic, racial or religious stereotypes, particularly in the impressionable young.

No wonder Obama's wife, Michelle, who attended the now-retired Wright's church with her husband for years, hadn't felt proud of America in her adult life.

Oh, and nice of Obama to throw his white grandma under the bus, saying that the woman who loved him and raised him had some racist tendencies of her own. We're sure the entire Obama family was proud of him on that one.

But it is not impossible according to the rules IMO. Since the superdelegates have complete autonomy, it seems they could turn the tables on Obama if they felt like it....

I guess you're counting on the superdelegates' good judgment to make the process work?

Yes, the idea is that the superdelegates will collectively have the wisdom and good judgment to deal with a difficult situation. And better to have it be done transparently, out in the open, and not in a back room.

That said, I thing there should be fewer. There I think the problem was that you can't include just some members of Congress and the Senate, and so there you are, boom, with over 250 superdelegates.

Perhaps four per state, with rules about they can be. The state party chair, plus the senior senator, governor and USRep. If no Senator or governor, then go through the USReps by seniority. If none of those (Idaho), then they just get the state party chair, which offsets some of the small state bias in such a plan.

But I think the larger point that James and I have been making here is clear now, right? This is not an election. It's a process for selecting a candidate for an election.

jay, it's your position that many long-time Democrats who hold office at the national level should not have any say about who my party's nominee should be, if there is no clear winner in the primaries? You're saying that Art Torres should have a say, and Dianne Feinstein should have a say, but Barbara Boxer should not? That's, uh, problematic.

It's pretty funny, to me, that no one has complained about the system of nomination in the Democratic Party since the 1980's, when the present system was devised. Now everyone and his sister has an opinion about it, most of those opinions are wacky, uninformed, and transparently biased. Geeez people. Get. A. Grip. A nominee will appear. A good nominee. A nominee whose platform far superior to John McCain's platform. People will either vote for him/her or they won't. Someone will get elected, and it makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE whether that person is a Democrat or a neocon-driven warmonger like John McCain.