Hillary Clinton's Five Big Mistakes

There's really nothing Hillary can do to win this because the press has been swooning over Obama since day one.

Atrios and David Kurtz were wondering earlier--did Mark Penn really think that the California primary was winner-take-all?

KT here--

JJ: This was a while back (last year), but two Clinton campaign sources who were at the meeting insist that it is true. One of them noted that things like this weren't really Penn's job, which was more about message. But still...

I was aware of many of these issues, but to read that Penn was not aware of proportional allocation of delegates AT ALL was shocking to me. But I think the sixth big mistake was that when the other five became apparent, the campaign tried to spin their way out of it instead of addressing the issues. The "caucus states don't really matter" line was the earliest and most obvious manifestation of big mistake number six.

Everyone notes your mind blowing anecdote about Penn for thinking CA was winner-take-all. This Texan remembers when the flaws of the "savvy" Clinton campaign became crystal clear -- when days before the primary, the campaign had yet to figure out our rules.

What eventually drove me to Obama was the fact that the backwoods Clinton I loved for driving the elites bonkers by crashing their country club had become so ingratiated into that system that they were starting to take on the same character flaws. The arrogance, entitlement, and lack of post-Super Tuesday planning, because their shawk-and-awe was going to sew the whole nomination up early, and she'd be greeted by flowers in the street. Now she's even shunning reality like the overwhelming consensus among economists about the McCain-Hillary gas tax suck-up. The reality-divorced explanations and rationales...

Obama may not wipe the floor with McCain quite as decisively in the campaign, but he is running a new kind of politics, not just high-minded, but based on the power of individual donors and democracy rather than the cronies who have looted our government. He hasn't made any deals with Murdoch or Scaif.

I flirted with playing the game, but it's clear that Obama's the best shot we have to change the game. As such, the threatened power brokers who enrich themselves in the current way of doing business will probably go after Obama like their life depends on it -- because it does. But it's a fight we have to have.

Good article, KT.

When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.

which is all the more reason, that a graceful shifting of gears at this juncture would be beneficial to all. For her to be campaigning actively against McCain at this point instead of still swiping at Obama could make all the difference in the world by the time November rolls around.

CMR: ..because the press has been swooning over Obama since day one.

Please. Clinton had an almost unprecedented structural advantage going into the campaign season - including plenty of surrogates pushing her as the presumptive, 'inevitable' candidate - and her campaign has wasted it all. If Clinton and Obama's prospects for the nomination were reversed, the calls for him to drop out would have started back in February.

....

All-in-all, a pretty fair assessment of why Clinton's campaign has faltered, Karen.

Excellent article, Karen --what a pleasure to read!

Thanks for this lovely work.

KT,
i agree with your assessment and they exacerabated each mistake by being reactionary. how the mighty have fallen....

KT,

I couldnt have said it better.

Clinton had the money, power, respect, resources, structure, name brand, references, and everything else to give her an advantage. If she ran her campaign correctly (or ran it AT ALL), Obama or anyone else, Democrat OR Republican, would not have had a chance. It was hers to lose.

But please believe that she is not done yet. She has an agenda and it drives why she is continuing to campaign:

Consider: The woman is a lawyer, so I KNOW that she realizes that her path to the Democratic nomination is OVER. But she is running to give women a VOICE. What I see happening is this: the convention will come around and her cronies will go to the Obamabites and say, "Look, we beat you in these key areas: working class whites, lower class w/o college education, elderly, and WOMEN. You, BO, will need them to have ANY chance against the Str8 Talk Express. This is why you need HRC on your ticket. Without her, you will LOSE."

What they are going to hope is that BO bites. If he does, he will be a lame duck president because Clintons will try to run things (that's all they know to do; they have been dreaming this up since McGovern's ill fated run of '72). I can see this happening. The woman isnt stupid - she is one of the most shrewd people in the game (along with her husband).

Stay tuned....

Karen -

Good article. Her campaign mismanagement, along with her disastrous fumbling of the '92 healthcare intiative, were primary reasons that this Richardson, then Edwards supporter could never choose her over Obama.

How a candidate handles a campaign is not always indicative of how they will perform as President but a disorganized, wasteful campaign wracked with dissension is not a particularly reassuring sign.

Obama's campaign on the other hand has been efficient, innovative and cool under fire. Just look, with all of the Clinton whining that they are being outspent 3 or 4 to 1, why is it that Obama has no debts and the campaign that spent less is deep in hock?

I always learned that living within your budget was a virtue and I hope Obama can bring the same values to the Executive Branch.

KT while I complete agree with you assessment. However, I think there needs to be six. Assuming the nomination was hers before the race even started.

This single assumption I think lead to the five failures you mention.

Thanks Karen, good piece.

So are we just not going to talk about Clinton's quote today? Because it's kind of a big deal.

Good article, Karen. George Will makes a supporting point ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703190.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 ) for one of your lines of reasoning by quoting Douglas MacArthur. Will writes: "Douglas MacArthur said that every military defeat can be explained by two words: "too late." Too late in anticipating danger, too late in preparing for it, too late in taking action. Clinton's political defeat can be similarly explained -- too late in recognizing that the electorate does not acknowledge her entitlement to the presidency, too late in understanding that she had a serious challenger, too late in anticipating that she would not dispatch Barack Obama by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), too late in planning for the special challenges of caucus states, too late in channeling her inner shot-and-a-beer hard hat."

OK, I'm just warning everyone that I'm about to make a fairly pointless comment to the effect that Mark Penn is stupider (or at least lazier) than we think. My reading of the article (and I looked at it again to be sure) is that Penn did not just think that CA was winner take all. Apparently he thought ALL the contests were winner take all and he planned… pardon me… "planned" the strategy as though delegates were analogous to electoral votes. This sort of argument, that super delegates should look at the map as representative of electoral votes, has been prevalent from the Clinton camp for a long time.

KT, am I reading too much into your piece or did penn just fundamentally misunderstand the nature of delegate allocation?

I think her biggest mistake was not running in 2004. I think she would be running for re-election right now against Jeb Bush if she had.

This is fantastic, Karen. It's amazing how flawed these political stypes are, how many simple mistakes they make. And they get paid so much money to blunder in ways that, well, if I made mistakes like Penn's, it'd cost me my job and I don't make a tenth of what he does.

It folds in with your first item about "misjudging the mood", but you really should have made specific mention of her foreign policy views, not just her vote for the AUMF but her blustery demagoguery on Iran. It all indicates that in her heart of hearts, she thought the Iraq War was a good idea, poorly executed. For someone to still have a blinkered McCain-Lieberman-lite view of foreign policy suggests that she didn't just misjudge the mood of the country, she misjudged the reality of the world as painfully demonstrated to the rest of us for the last eight years.

Which leads into what would've been my number one: She thought it was 2000, part II. Not just HRC, but Bill, Carville, Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, McAuliffe... as I see it, they all seemed to campaign as if the last eight years never happened. We were just gonna have a do-over with Hillary instead of Gore and McCain instead of Bush. To pretend that the mood of the electorate, of partisan Democrats in particular, hadn't changed because of everything from Bush v Gore (quite frankly, there's a reason more people outside of her campaign and the FL democratic party aren't losing a lot of sleep of Florida's primary) to Iraq to torture to habeas corpus.... Portraying yourself as a fighter and alluding to Ken Starr (and, um, Richard Mellon Scaife) while a lot of us are wondering how the hell you could sit on your hands under Bush-Cheney? That strategy was doomed from the start.

I think I agree with RKA. She should have run in 2004. Most people voting for Kerry (myself included) were voting against Bush more than they were voting for Kerry. I've never been a Clinton fan and I cannot stand the fact that she voted for the Iraq war. Still, she would have had my vote in 2004 although my support for her would still have been anti-Bush instead of pro-Clinton. But that would not have been the case with other people. She could have really energized the campaign and whipped Bush. It was a mistake for her not to have run and now as my earlier post says, it is too late.

Instead of paying Mark Penn, shouldn't the Clinton campaign be sueing him for malpractice?

At least let him have to sue her for the money. I think a jury would have a hard time saying that he had earned his fee. Isn't incompetance still a valid reason to void a contract?

Mike M.: ...if I made mistakes like Penn's, it'd cost me my job and I don't make a tenth of what he does.

Judging by the reaction in the bloggysphere in places like TPM and Eschaton, I'd say that Karen may have (unintentionally) ended Penn's career as a campaign strategist.

What RKA said.

OT, but NPR just said that the search of Scott Block's home included a physical search of him. Seems before he had his computers wiped, he transferred some files to flash drives, which he kept on his person.

Some stuff goin' on.

Posted by superterrificdelegate | May 8, 2008 12:43 PM:

Apparently he thought ALL the contests were winner take all and he planned… pardon me… "planned" the strategy as though delegates were analogous to electoral votes.

Karen:

Is there any other indication at all that this might be true?

From the Times - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/

As if the divisions between race and gender in the Democratic Party hadn’t been further exposed through Tuesday night’s exit polls — and by a very heated exchange on CNN between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with USA Today on Wednesday is further mining those tense depths.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.
It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
While she said her remarks weren’t meant to be divisive, they’re already whipping around the Internet.

6. Hiring Ari Fleischer as mouthpiece (Wait, what? That WASN'T Ari Fleischer?)
7. Not downing the entire shot in PA
8. That cackle. God, that cackle!
9. The whole "They're beating up on a girl" routine
10. Still not sure about that coat

KT here--

What Superterrific and others say about Penn, and how he could have so miscalculated: (PS: This is why I love this forum. There's really so little space in the mag to really talk about this.) There's a real conflict of interest built into the system. Consultants (and often pollsters) get paid as a percentage of the ad buy. They get nada for building a good organization. So there is a built-in incentive to think that message drives everything--and it does in big states like California. But it can't win you a caucus in a little state. Also, please remember Penn had joined the Clinton team in 1996, when Bill didn't have a primary opponent. So his whole mindset and experience were about general elections. (Also, don't forget Al Gore fired him amid the 2000 primary race.) And even in 1992, by the time the primary race got to the big states like California, WJC had already vanquisted Tsongas. So he really didn't have any experience in this kind of trench warfare. It doesn't excuse what happened in Hillary's campaign, but I think it begins to explain it.

The Other Ed,

Clinton should have fired Penn when she fired Patty Solis Doyle (or kept Solis Doyle and fired Penn), but they can't sue because they knew he was incompetent and they kept him on anyway. The thing that's really bizarre is that I'm hearing a lot of reporters say that the Clinton campaign may be trying to get the Obama campaign to pay its debts as a condition of her withdrawing from the race, so that would mean picking up the couple million or so that Clinton owes Penn. Maybe Obama should just offer to run some attack ads against himself instead.

"Barack Obama is an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't understand the concerns of working Americans"

"I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

Chalking this up to just tactical errors is silly.
Clinton's #1 liability was and is her last name;
the public just isn't prepared to hand the White House over to another political dynasty.

Second, she ran into a once-in-a-generation politician by the name of Barack Obama.

It's just that simple.

KT,

Thanks for your response (this is why I love this forum). Clearly, this was not the kind of fight for Penn to be directing, but I still can't get my mind around why he didn't just read the DNC rules. It seems for all the world that he just didn't bother. The contrast to the operation run by Axelrod, where it was all about finding delegates wherever they were, is stark.

Clinton's mistakes:

1) Hiring Mark Penn.
2) Paying millions to Mark Penn.
3) Listening to Mark Penn.
4) Believing Mark Penn.
5) Not firing Mark Penn.

This last point about the advisers making their money from the ad buy is a central theme in Crashing the Gate which is still worth reading if you haven't already.

And I'll reiterate what I think is the real story here--the dimunition of importance of the contribution bundlers and lobbyists. A citizen-funded campaign is a much healthier campaign. That group of funders is deeply entwined with the same consultants (Colombia, for example) who advise candidates to adopt pro-business policies. It's also deeply entwined in media-based campaign directed at the Kerry states plus Ohio or Florida. It has weakened the party in order to benefit Beltway insiders.

I don't think Obama expected it to work out this way. Just as Dean was surprised at the role of the internet in his campaign, I think the Obama campaign has to be surprised at just how much money he can raise. It will be interesting to see if it moves him to a less become a less corporatist elected official.

Still reading Nixonland. Humphrey has just come out against the war, his poll numbers are climbing, but he's broke. His people go to TX and plead with oil men for $700,000. They insist on a quid pro quo on continuing the oil depletion allowance. Humphrey's people say it's like buying insurance, and then threaten to kill it if they don't get the money, kinda a quo post quid.

They don't get the money.

I keep telling you people to pay attention to poblano's more sophisticated approach to forecasting.

The National Journal has gotten the memo. His model outperformed the polling outfits (as you would expect). His head to heads are better than anyone else's although it is still too early to trust the polling numbers.

He has Obama well ahead, and well ahead of Clinton.

Here's his home base: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

he's got a real flair for graphical presentation as well.

...the dimunition of importance of the contribution bundlers and lobbyists.

And they HATE it:

http://www.mahablog.com/2008/03/27/the-threat/

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1003

Really interesting article Karen and I think spot on.

I'd say though that there was a number six, they underestimated the hatred of certain segments of the media for them. No other candidate has had every word parsed for hidden meaning, their clothing, their children, their spouse, their sex life, etc... looked at as relentlessly and negatively as Hillary.

I'm not saying this to reopen the argument on whether she was treated fairly by the press, because I believe she was and no one will convince me otherwise.

I say it thinking that she should have either been more prepared for it or worked harder to schmooze them over like McCain once it became apparent that she was running into a buzz saw.

Oops - should have said I believe she WASN'T treated fairly.

KT

Nice piece. It's never one thing or even five things that sinks a campaign. It's a series of mistakes that are either mishandled, or not taken seriously. A campaign, much like being the President, is every bit as much about what you choose to not to do, or what problem doesn't make it to the top list that day.

In the end, a campaign is a job interview. We are hiring an executive to run an enormous corporation. One candidate started with very little resources and a hunger to learn. The other started with tremendous resources and forgot that there's always something new to learn.

One built. The other destroyed.

Who would you hire?

(BTW, I think you may have meant to write "the new dead-tree issue of Time", instead of "the new issue of dead-tree Time")

From USA Today:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests."

This is the lead of the USA Today interview that Disenfranchsed Libertarian refers to. If HRC were making the case that she wants to stay in the race until all the primaries are completed, or until there is a settlement of the Michigan-Florida issue, I could understand it..."let everyone have a voice" to help turnout in the fall.

But if this race-baiting argument is all she has left to cling to...what possible benefit is there to her campaign, her reputation and the Democratic party? And what superdelegate can read this without saying, "Enough is enough"?

Argh. That comment about Obama being ahead is out of date. He has McCain ahead right now.

KT here--

Superterrific: As supremely talented as Axe is, I'm not sure he deserves all the credit here. David Plouffe and Steve Hildebrand have a lot of experience is this field. Which gets me to another point that a top official of the Kerry campaign once told me: Every few years, a whole new crop of talented political operatives springs up, working on the new models. HRC was sticking with folks whose experience was honed in the 1990s. It was an insular operation that seemed to have no interest in reaching out. Obama, on the other hand, scooped up talented admaker Jim Margolis after Mark Warner (to whom Margolis was committed) decided not to run.

Also, people inside the Clinton operation were so jealous of their power that they didn't want to empower anyone else to make decisions. I get the sense that Obamaworld has another culture entirely, which is why the Daschle folks there (like Hildebrand) have been able to work so seamlessly with the Axelrod/Chicago crowd (like Plouffe). Not to mention they don't seem to be getting paid nearly as well in Obamaworld.

I agree, "Crashing the Gate" is excellent. I actually keep my copy in my office and have lent it to my fellow co-workers who ask about it and express interest. And I will be glad to get back to being a regular at Dailykos, soon.

KT, very good article, fair and balanced and I this with no snark intended.

I want HRC to stay it until the last primary. It's important for me as a woman for the world to see that a woman can tough it out under really heavy fire. If Timmy hadn't opened up his big mouth, maybe I'd want her to concede right now. But at this point I would be disappointed if she took the "advice" of the press, most of whom are men. Nothing wrong with men, I love them, I married one. However, to almost a man they have been hostile toward HRC and cut her very little slack.

I don't believe for a second that she's hurting the party or Obama's chances in the GE. The constant meme in the MSM that she's using the Repug playbook is nonsense, as they have not said anything about Obama's using the Repug playbook against HRC when he presses his case that he's more electable.

Maybe when some of the press hysteria subsides, a few in the media will remember it wasn't HRC's camp who initially posted excerpts from Wright's sermons or brought up Ayers. Obviously her campaign did not do any serious opposition research or they would have uncovered these issues before the race got underway. I think that shows she never had an intention to run a scorched-earth campaign but merely used what was brought to the table by others.

JJ

Indeed they do. We'll see how Obama handles this.

TeresaKopec,

Whether she was treated fairly by the press or not, she had every advantage POSSIBLE, and SCREWED IT UP! It is her fault and hers ALONE....

Someone tell Michael Scherer he has to come up with another excuse or apology for John McCain STAT!!!

Rod Parsely, the other McCain pastor problem:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/08/mccain%e2%80%99s-other-pastor-problem-rod-parsley/

And Cindy says her tax returns will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER be released.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/193985.php

Start "excusifyin'" Michael

superterrificdelegate: The thing that's really bizarre is that I'm hearing a lot of reporters say that the Clinton campaign may be trying to get the Obama campaign to pay its debts as a condition of her withdrawing from the race, so that would mean picking up the couple million or so that Clinton owes Penn.

Yeah, I heard that too, and if it's true, I have mixed feelings about it...On the surface, it's okay; the Clintons would be slightly more inclined to use their still-considerable campaign operation to benefit Obama, perhaps with additional concessions...Except that Obama may not need some of what the Clintons have to offer.

On the other side, we'd probably have to listen to 'Obama paid Hillary to get out of the race' repeated ad infinitum in the attempt to inflame some folks with residual hard feelings about the results of the Dem primary, cheesing them off enough to remember how they were never gonna vote for Obama...

From USA Today:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests."

I wonder what people who are claiming that she isnt race baiting is going to say NOW.....

This campaign is negating ALL the work her and her husband has done for civil rights, etc. It really is an amazing fall..kind of like a slow car crash that you KNOW is going to happen, but you just cant do anything to stop it. All you can do is watch in amazement.

For all of the dignity that she has lost and for little of the dignity she has left, one has to wonder how this is going to play in her desire to get reelected in the future NY Senate race......

Shu: Whether she was treated fairly by the press or not, she had every advantage POSSIBLE, and SCREWED IT UP! It is her fault and hers ALONE....

----------------

Wow, and they say Hillary is shrill.

TeresaKopec: Wow, and they say Hillary is shrill.

_________________

Not shrill at all. It is just that I dont accept the idea that HRC was somehow railroaded or had a disadvantage. She was the INEVITABLE NOMINEE.....they had magazines asking whether she could be STOPPED...she ALREADY knew about her likeability rating....she wasnt going into this campaign eyes wide shut.

Or so we thought....

I'm wondering why Mrs. Clinton's campaign thought she was the inevitable nominee. She started the race with 100% name recognition and could barely scrape together 50% among Democrats in most of the early polls. Maybe it is not a case of hubris as much as not being able to do basic math.

Shu: they had magazines asking whether she could be STOPPED
---------------------

Isn't that kind of proving my point. "Can she be stopped?" is akin to likening her to the woman in Fatal Attraction -- a comparison that many male pundits have made about her.

But if you actually read my post you would see that I say once she realized the press was going after her, why didn't she try and come up with a plan to neutralize that.

KT,

I mentioned Axelrod as sort of shorthand for the whole operation which is very imprecise of me, but I agree with you completely. I have a lot of admiration for all those guys and how well they've managed an insurgent campaign. I stayed up late Tuesday until MSNBC finally called Indiana for Hillary and I said to myself, "Stupid, you heard Chuck Todd say the Obama campaign thought they would come up 15,000 short two hours ago and they always know where the votes are."

grape_crush, I think whatever the Obama campaign gained by bailing out Clinton would be lost in the inevitable accusations that he bought the nomination, plus it just smacks of extortion from the Clinton camp.

TeresaKopec,

My ultimate point is that she did not take care of what she COULD control. If she did,I believe that she would be able to neutralize the bad press and the hatred that eminated from the media.

She has been a Senator since 2000, I believe, so she HAD to know that you could not do politics like it was 1992. So why bring back people who were stuck in the 1992 mode of thinking? Are YOU the same person as you were in 1992? I would think not. Yet, the Clinton campaign saw the country and the world in the lens of a 1992 society.

That is 16 years ago, almost a generation ago. They just could not get it....and that is what amazes me most.

Oooh...if I ever have the opportunity to write a dissertation in my life, this campaign is IT!

KT:

You missed ENTIRELY the mood of the Black electorate. Absolutely entirely! You failed to even mention the fact that before Super Tuesday, she commanded some 70% of the Black vote.

With Bill and her racial "miscues", that evaporated. Absolutely evaporated! Now it is 93% in the other direction. Do you HONESTLY think losing that much support didn't have any impact on her failure or success?

This is an astonishing oversight, considering you observe:

"Her core supporters — women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs — were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires"

And left out the fact that Black voters WERE her core supporters.

Highly flawed, and it should be a lesson to anyone in politics in the future!

Talk about myopy, KT!

Good article, and good comments. Of course, it's easy to see in retrospect the mistakes. What did Clinton do right (and she had to do something right to get this far)? Thoughts? KT? TK? Anybody?

53_3,

GREAT POINT. Do you know that she has less support from the Black electorate than BUSH Jr has?!!!!!

The "inevitable" was part of her strategy; I don't think it was meant to convey arrogance but to try and establish the meme she was the natural choice for the Dems. And as I said, the Clinton camp seems to have done very little opposition research (very little digging would have been necessary to come up with the Wright Stuff)on any of the other Dem candidates.

Mistakes were made in her campaign, but the media's relentless focus on HRC's shortcomings was in stark contrast to their glowing coverage of Obama. Of course the frontrunner takes the heat, but HRC got NO positive coverage, excerpt for a little bit from Joe Klein and Paul Krugman. Even when Obama was battling the Wright fallout the press would point our his good qualities and many in the MSM expressed outrage over the stir Wright was causing. Obama's speech on "race" was praised to the skies (very few in the media pointed out he gave it basically to save himself).

KT,

Another issue:

Rush Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos' followers are almost exclusively blue collar whites.

Do you honestly think you and other pundits can talk confidently about Obama's or Hillary's ability to woo these voters. How can Rush's injection of some 200,000+ rogue voters into almost exclusively that particular demographic not impact the numbers.

The actual impact of such activity might have been large enough to completely invalidate ANY statistical analyisis made when working with this particular electorate!

I'm sorry, KT, but to really look at these issues even as you present them, you must take into consideration ALL factors.

Because, like Hillary found out the hard way, ignoring them has a VERY high price!

What did Clinton do right (and she had to do something right to get this far)?

Did she? Her lead was so large before Iowa that I really can't discount the possibility that THAT alone has carried her this far, that she and her keystone cops campaign simply couldn't have frittered a lead that large away any faster than this.

Regardless, KT, that was a really excellent article. Thanks for writing it.

Billiecat,

It seemed like she was going to turn the corner in NH when she won. It seemed like the loss in NH served as a wakeup call, and that she would learn not to sleep on BO.

She WAS STILL messing up! But even then, it seemed like she would turn the corner after Nevada. But it just never happened.

I think James Clyburn said it best, "None of us imagined that HRC would NOT be the nominee." I think people are forgetting that fact - not only did she think she was the inevitable nominee, but that other notable politicians thought so as well. No one saw BO as anything more than a possible VP selection when he began. He was running too early. He needed to be more seasoned.

Oh how things change. Yes, we can all play Monday morning QB, but at some point you have to have SOMEONE in your campaign say, "Hey, we need to right this ship." It doesnt seem like anyone did that.

Shu:

Yes. What should be kept in mind by everyone is that should Democrats keep tacitly taking that electorate for granted, there might be a very large migration (on the order of 40%) to McCain.

After all, one of the 'unknown knowns' in this campaign has been the fact that there are MANY conservatives within that constituancy!

KT here--

Billiecat: The weird thing is, I think she became a much better candidate after she started losing. (A good candidate who had a bad campaign.) In talking to the campaign, they noted that she really couldn't move into the populist "space" until John Edwards got out, but it did seem to fit her in many ways. Her energy and focus in Pennsylvania and Ohio were incredible. People--women, especially--liked seeing her as a fighter, rather than carrying herself with an aura of inevitability and entitlement. And that's one reason I agree with Southern Bell that there's no reason for her to get out now, and that there's even an argument for her to stay in, as long as it is a positive campaign about herself, and not focused on giving Republicans more arguments to use against Obama.

Shu: "Do you know that she has less support from the Black electorate than BUSH Jr has?"

While I'm sure the Clintons have damaged their standing somewhat among African Americans, I wouldn't equate a 90+% African American vote for Obama in the Primary as the same as the negative rating Bush has, just as the number of women supporting Clinton doesn't mean they won't support Obama. The vast majority of those voters will still vote for the Democrat in the general. So, while the handling of the African American vote may have been a mistake, I wouldn't put it in the top five reasons she came up short.

Her energy and focus in Pennsylvania and Ohio were incredible. People--women, especially--liked seeing her as a fighter

For me, the effect was just the opposite: Where was that 'energy and focus' when Bush was shredding the Constitution? Her determination in this campaign merely served to highlight the contrast to her passivity as a Senator.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_05_04_archive.html#4533322992477116819

Atrios has an important insight which I think should be widely diseminated.

Several threads ago someone wrote commented on something I said by replying "except that my view is accurate and yours is baseless".

I thought he was kidding and took it as a very insightful view of the difference between seeing the world from inside vs outside your own preferences.

It was only after I saw a few other comments did I realize that he was dead serious and utterly incapable of seeing how foolish he sounded.

I react the same way when I read about people complaining about the press coverage of their favorite candidate. When you factor in the human tendency to filter everything, you end up with a truth that significantly less severe than than the accusations would warrant.

Now about that BBQ........

KT -- and that there's even an argument for her to stay in, as long as it is a positive campaign about herself, and not focused on giving Republicans more arguments to use against Obama.
-----------------------
Esp. if she is going to win West Virginia and Kentucky anyway. It would be embarrasing for Obama to lose those states if Hillary was not even officially running. Better it ends on May 20 when they can both win a state and end things on a positive note.

One of her strongest assets was her ability to convey where she stood on the issues and explain herself with ease in a way that was perfectly understandable. There's a reason she was usually seen as having won the debates.

Obama is a much better orator and speechgiver BUT he is much poorer at presenting his case for being elected due to the issues he intends to press when he's president. Often I'll watch him being interviewed and after he's done try and distill what he just said and I realized he was very articulated but didn't say anything concrete.

If there is one thing Obama could copy from HRC's style, it's how to be clear and concise when talking about the issues.

Billiecat,

When BO first announced, people within the Black community were not buying it. They did not think that he had a chance to win, and therefore, did not want to "waste a vote on someone who would not win the WH."

Once he showed that it was possible for him to win, there was a struggle within the Black community as to who to vote for. Do they vote for BO, who was the 1st AA to have a chance to win? Or do they vote for HRC, wife of the "first Black president (as Toni Morrison put it)"? The struggle was real and people did not know what to do.

We cannot underestimate the statements (in and out of context) that the Clintons made that alienated Black voters. I think that it is a big part in this - more so than the fact that BO has a chance. I think if the Clintons would have not made those statements and have not conducted themselves the way that they did that they would have kept about 35% of the AA vote - maybe enough to make some of the states that BO won more competitive at the very least.

KT - that is sort of what I thought as well. It seemed to me the thing she did right was she "found her own voice" during the campaign. Before this she was deep in the shadow of Bill. From now on, she's her own political brand. And I agree this really didn't manifest itself until after her "inevitability" had been punctured - even though from the start the campaign played up the idea that she was "the most famous woman you don't really know."

as it is a positive campaign about herself, and not focused on giving Republicans more arguments to use against Obama.

That's a mighty big IF.

It would be nice of she could pull it off....

billiecat:

That isn't true. Not by a long shot. There is a significant section of that electorate who are conservatives. That is what you are ignoring.

The problem is that Hillary went racial. They didn't migrate to Obama in such numbers just because he's partly Black, they migrated to him because she drove them away. Many in the Black community were supporters of Hillary because they didn't want to waste their votes on a candidate who couldn't win.

When they began to see that he was able to garner votes among the White electorate, they took a look, but still stayed loyal. When she began attacking him in paralell with Hannity etc, they broke for the doors.

Why?

She went racial.

She has NO chance of ever being able to garner that vote. On the other hand, the conservative segment of the Black electorate don't see McCain in anywhere near the negative light they saw Bush and previous Republicans.

Those individuals were practitioners of the 'Southern Strategy' which is a euphemism to say the least.

The conservative Black vote has stayed in the Democratic party for one reason and one reason only: The democrats were the lesser of two evils.

Since Hillary went racial, and their has been so much support and hypocricy among many Democrats for these sort of tactics, many conservative Black voters no longer feel that way.

To ignore these issues will be disasterous...

Shu:

DEAD on!

BTW, if anybody can do this thought experiment:

How would Hillary have done if she managed to retain that 70% of the Black electorate?

My guess:

We would be talking about Hillary's candidacy in a very positive way, and Obama would be waiting until 2012 or perhaps 2016.

KT here--

53_3 and Shu: I have a different theory on the black electorate. Yes, the Clintons alienated them, but I also think (and was told at various points in my reporting) that African-Americans weren't willing to cast their lot with Obama until they were convinced that he could actually win. In fact, until he did that (starting in Iowa), his candidacy made many blacks--especially older ones--more anxious than excited.

KT here--

Adding to that point: The Clintons' missteps with black voters came just at the moment when they themselves were beginning to believe in Obama, which amplified the damage.

KT,

There was still a struggle! Im not saying that BO would have not still received the majority of the Black vote. But he would not received 92%! Do you think he still would have?

Great article Karen.

The fact that they screwed the campaign up so badly is proof to me that she shouldn't be allowed to be president.

These were really, really basic mistakes in strategy and planning (except for the "mood of the country has changed" one).

I'm sorry, KT, but I hear much different.

I've been hearing the same anxiety, but, as a matter of course, many of them are conservative, and others have decided that she no longer deserves her consideration.

I've heard many speak of the fact that they still appreciate Bill, but they will not give her the time of day.

Now, amongst older Blacks, I've seen some anxiety about possible negative events taking place such as assassination and other things, but many also see, particularly, where she played the race card.

Sorry, KT, but I just don't think you are right on this one.

Jayack: Thanks for the link for Poblano. At 10:11 Tuesday Pollster reported that he predicted that Clinton would win by 1.8% or 23,000 votes, which was spot on. very impressive.

She didn't go racial.

Bill said some stuff that got intepreted as being racial but that's a different thing.

I sincerely doubt Robert Johnson would have remained a supporter if he believed the Clintons deliberately went racial. And it's hard to imagine Maggie Williams remaining with the campaign if she felt her race was being maligned in the name of politics.

As a matter of fact, KT, I've pointed out exactly the same phenomenon earlier in my post (the supporting of Hillary until Obama could show that he could win).

What happened however during that exact period of time, she played the race card, and even afterward, attempted to apologize for it. Her apologies were unheard, and that electorate remained unswayed.

Her going to Fox to amplify her attempts to tar Obama with Wright to the exclusion of how other's associations were ignored did massive damage in their eyes. She was singing in concert with the most rabid section of the Republican party to inflict her damage, and this was NOT ignored.

Bear in mind, KT, that a large segment of that electorate are conservative and have only stayed in the Democratic camp because they represent the lesser of two evils...

Southern Bell:

Just because Black operatives remain with her doesn't really mean much. Ron Sims, who is Black and is the King County executive here still supports her.

There are some in the Black community that will, and, of course, she's not a racist herself, I don't beleive.

Most Black voters I've talked to don't think she is racist either, but they don't appreciate the fact that she played the 'Hussein' card and the 'Farrakahn' card too, in addition to going racial. Ferraros' comments and views aren't even news now and she insulted BOTH Black and White Americans.

Karen - I'd love a post on what you know about the "Obama paying for Hillary's debts" stories.

I had promised myself not to gloat over Hillary losing, and exercise some charity here (sorry for my comment yesterday Stuart, which dissed her even though I didn't gloat).

I can't wrap my head around this. If Hillary were a person of relatively modest means("only" a few million, say, :o/) I could see helping her with fundraising. But is the idea that Barack would use some of the $25 donations he's gotten from people who don't even have that to spare, and pay off Hillary so the poor ittle candidate doesn't lose any of her $109million? I don't get it.

Shu & 53_3 -

The first contest where the black vote was significant was South Carolina. Prior to that, you had a split decision between Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama overwhelmingly won the black vote in South Carolina. It was only after that that the "racial" issue started to be heard. So Obama's gains in the black community can't be attributed solely to the "racial" issue.

More significant, I think, is that Obama stayed competitive through Super Tuesday. On Super Tuesday, only in Georgia and Alabama did the black vote have the same kind of impact it had in South Carolina, and yet Obama didn't fall out of contention. At that point, there was no credible argument that Obama had no chance to be the nominee. He went on to win 11 straight contests, many of which did not hinge on the black vote. Given the lack of real significant difference in policy positions between him and Clinton, there was no reason that a black voter who wanted to see a black president should have felt he or she was throwing away his or her vote. So his momentum among black voters increased as his momentum among other groups also increased (albeit more slowly).

Look at the flip side - Obama has been gaining among Clinton's core constituency of women as this thing drags on. Why? Probably because a vote for Clinton because she is going to be the first woman president is now a misguided vote (which is not the same as saying any vote for Clinton is misguided, even one based on her gender).

So, yes, I would agree that the Clintons damaged their standing. Yes, they need to do some fence mending (and campaigning hard for Obama in the general is probably the best way to do that). No, it's not why she lost.

Sothern Bell:

To elaborate, going 'racial' is a tool in the toolbox. Most Black voters she used that tool as part of her attack strategy, but that doesn't necessarily mean she is racist herself.

That is why, I think, that many of her Black operatives don't leave.

And I myself beleive that she's not racist either, but she DID go racial.

Southern Bell--

Hard to argue with the position that she should stay in the race, if only to say "eff U Timmeh."

But it would be nice if they could campaign together, against McCain, in a celebration of having these two historic candidacies.

billiecat:

You are right, but the events after South Carolina are the ones that are remembered.

That's the problem. The numbers now speak for themselves. She is getting the same numbers that hardcore Southern Strategy politicians get when they garner a Black vote.

Their movements from one candidate to the other is a different phenomena than their unwillingness to forgive her.

I remind you again that a significant percentage of the Black electorate is conservative. There isn't much that will keep them in the party if they see that the lesser of two evils is in the Republican camp, and I've heard a lot of them talk more postively about McCain as a moderate than Hillary.

Obama, despite his labelling by some as a 'liberal' candidate is actually a little closer to the center on economic issues than is Hillary and thus retains their interest in him.

billiecat,

What do you suggest that HRC does from this point forward?

Jayackroyd, Southern Bell:

I would like to see that, too. As long as she stops attacking him and giving McCain more ammo (yes, I don't want him to attack her either!), it would be great.

There is one good combo that may solve the Black electorate problem, too, and that is to give Hillary the VP slot.

ALL:

We have talked about the 5 (or more things she has done wrong). What are 5 things she can do RIGHT from this point forward until the election in November?

Southern Bell

Some of the 50 shots that killed Sean Bell in NYC wre fired by 2 Black NYPD detectives. Kenneth Blackwell, the former Ohio sec of state, is African-American. Blackwell participated in suppressing the Black vote in Ohio in 2000.

Robert Johnson made billions degrading black women in videos and promoting thug life.

Just because someone shares a skin tone does not make them an ally. It's the content of their character that counts.

53_3:

That's interesting, in light of this post from a commenter yesterday:

Let me help you guys out here, seems as if a lot of non-blacks are trying to figure whats going on in the heads of African-American people, and why so many of them are voting for Obama. (When you ask yourself this question out loud, the simplest answer might also be the correct one.) Anyhoo, The AA community has, and is, a huge constituency of the democratic party. Now, let us be clear. Our allegiance has been to the democratic PARTY first, AA's are not new in the voting side of the D Party, and have voted, supported, and helped finance every candidate with a D- next to their name. This is not because of the many black democratic candidates with have run for president, (sarcasm), but because the D Party embodies a lot of values that AA's, and Americans for that matter, hold dear.AND, he can actually become president. J. Jackson never recieved this kind of support, and with good reason. Black people didn't think he'd do a good job. We knew he'd be judged as a black president first, and we didn't want Jesse ruining the opportunity for a future viable candidate. We now know the name name of that viable candidate now, and its Barack Obama. Let's be real, Obama and Clinton voted the same way, 93.8 of the times in the senate, their differences are quite minimal. Clinton would be catching the same amount of votes from the AA voters, If OBAMA, wasn't running. (Emphasis on Obama, because any other random AA would not receive the same result) Let's be clear, his policies and ideas are first, his skin color second. Some of you make it sound as if AA democrats are voting against the Democratic ideals, as if Obama is a Republican candidate, but we're voting for him anyways, just because we want to see a black president. (Something some Clinton supporters have vowed to do, unless she's the candidate. Shame on you all.) The bottom line is and always has been, that most AA's want a GOOD Democratic President. If we can get one that's Black too, of course its a huge bonus. Why wouldn't we rally behind him over Clinton, when they're politically mirror images of each other?

Posted by nyleharris | May 7, 2008 7:01 PM

It seems there are a number of perspectives on reasons for the demographic breakdowns in voting patterns, some of which do not posit that the Clintons' "going racial" (an idiotic pejorative, IMO), nor the Obama campaign's (and supporters') strategy post-NH of incessant accusations and attempts to alienate the Clintons from African-Americans were the prime cause for how some primary state results turned out.

Southern Bell,

Hillary staying in the race may look like a sign of strength to you, but to me it just looks like someone who is too stubborn to know when to quit. If you've seen our current president, hopefully you can understand why that is not a quality many admire anymore. Her refusal to even admit her slim chances only reminds me of the spin and lies of the current administration.

Let's just let her keep going if you think that's what's best. Please keep in mind that she's now paying for it out of her own pocket (and Bill's).

Personally, I think she has the potential to do a lot of good... or a lot of bad. Anything negative she says against Obama can be cited by Republicans as having a shred of truth, because hey, "the other democrat said it!" But if this is what Hillary supporters need to do to get it out of their system, let's do it.

Southern Bell again

The inevitability thing was also intended to dry up all the money. And if I remember right, it largely worked. She did scare the big donors away from Obama. She simply didn't realize there was another money source. Another case of 1992 thinking.

It's interesting that the reason the netroots dislike her, by and large, is her commitment to the political models of the 90s, and that very commitment has brought her down.

Posted by jayackroyd | May 8, 2008 2:51 PM:

Hard to argue with the position that she should stay in the race, if only to say "eff U Timmeh."

Right the f--k on.

Digby has it right:

Look, I have the same analysis of the outcome of the elections in Indiana and North Carolina that most people have this morning. Clinton's best argument --- which was essentially that the voters were taking a second look at Obama and showing some buyers remorse --- didn't pan out last night. And there's nothing wrong with political junkies sitting around the virtual pot-bellied stove and saying the race is "over" or exhorting her to drop out. We're citizens and, in some cases, political players. There is, however, something unbelievably distasteful about a handful of powerful, millionaire, celebrity pundits "declaring" such a thing and having the paper of record breathlessly report it as if it was decisive and meaningful.

Who the f*ck anointed Tim Russert as the final arbiter of anything? His job is to analyze the political landscape not declare the decision as if he were some kind of Roman Emperor giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. It's bad enough that these gasbags put those thumbs on the scale as hard as they do, but actually taking the initiative to say when the race is over is even worse. To coin a favorite Village phrase, "it's not their place."

It may be that last night really was the tie breaker that showed that Obama's campaign could withstand some harsh press and rebound from setbacks. It's not a bad thing for Democratic voters to test that out and give him some practice. If he's the nominee and then the president, he's going to have to get used to it. But if it is the end, as I think many of us suspect, it's for Senator Clinton to be the one to declare it, not Tim Russert or any other fatuous overpaid Village gasbag who is no more insightful or informed than any of you.

The idea floating around, even in the blogosphere, that once Tim Russert "says it" it's true is so galling that I can hardly keep from projectile vomiting. Giving him that power will come back to bite us hard down the road.
...
I think we all see the writing on the wall. Obama has plenty of money and there is no great problem if this thing goes on for a couple of weeks. I think everyone should relax about the campaign and start regrouping around the ideas that brought us here --- one of which is the fact that the mainstream media are tools, that Drudge is a Republican pimp and that our nation is not well served by a bunch of corporate whores who all sit around sipping mojitos on Nantucket playing with our politics like they are a rousing game of cribbage.

Shu:

1. Stop attacking Obama. He's rubber and she's glue.

2. Turn her fire on McCain, and in doing so, figure out a way to undo her unfavorable comparisons of Obama to him.

3. Stay in the nomination race, but go low-key. This will help her retire some campaign debt, fend off embarrassment for the eventual nominee when he loses West Virginia and Kentucky, and keep open her (and the party's) options if we suddenly find out Obama is from Planet Clare and his alien overlords are on their way.

4. Work behind the scenes for a plausible, reasonable deal to seat Michigan and Florida delegates in some fashion that does justice to the rules but "allows their voices to be heard."

5. Work like crazy for Obama in the general, and make Bill do the same. Even if he doesn't offer the VP slot (which, if she has half a brain, she'd decline anyway, for all the reasons Josh Marshall lists on TPM).

Stuart:

Some Black Americans feel the way described in your post, but that isn't the only point of view within the Black community.

There ARE conservatives within that community and there are many who feel that Hillary went racial. As a matter of fact, most went to Obama after Hillary's attacks on him and Bill's blunders.

What needs to be kept in mind is that this poster does reperesent the thought processes very well going on in that community, but it is not all there is to it. Both of us have read posters from the Black community who represent points of view different than this particular individual.

Karen:

My entry for #6:

Neither Hillary nor her team fundamentally understood how different campaigning is technologically in 2008 from what it was in 1992. She never quite got it that she couldn't say different things to different audiences, so e.g. she was constantly trying to tell one state they were better than that awful state she had just told the week before how wonderful they are. (She's still doing it today: ("“Because for too long we have let places like West Virginia slip out of the Democratic column..." Apparently West Virgina is the one small state that counts.)

I'm Hillary's age, and reasonably conversant with the internets, but I don't own a cell phone (sigh). So when I was heading to Obama HQ before our primary to make calls I had a picture in my head of the last time I did this (1992) when the candidate's HQ had "banks" of phones for calling. I pop into Obama's HQ, and I get handed one of dozens of cellphones, and go find whatever free space I can settle into. I thought "of course!" This is also how his people could sweep into a rented space, roost for a few days or a few weeks, and leave the day after the primary. Hillary's team must have been doing it this way too, but I thought I read something that suggested otherwise, and then there's the 1960's "red phone" complete with handset and cord. Even if they didn't underestimate phone technology, it's clear that the generational difference in understanding 2008 reality hobbled them.

...also, Obama superdelegate Chris Bowers has it right:

I am finding myself resistant to the way this nomination campaign appears to be ending, mainly because there is no logic to it. All of the arguments that could be used by the punditry to declare the nomination campaign over could have been used really at any point since Wisconsin. For some reason, those arguments appear to be sticking tonight, whereas they weren't earlier. According to the logic that ends the campaign tonight, there was no reason to torture us for the past two months, except to damage Democrats for the sake of damaging Democrats. I guess I should have learned by now that that is reason enough.

The Clinton campaign will probably slog on in some form, as Ben Smith indicates. After all, she is going to win West Virginia, and maybe Michigan really won't have a single delegate for Obama. Or something else absurd that won't happen. However, the truth is that the Clinton campaign has been kept alive by inaccurate and arbitrary media rules that now seem to have arbitrarily shifted against her. Survival in that environment will prove extremely difficult indeed. Live by the arbitrary media narrative, become irrelevant by it. The nomination campaign seems to have outlived its usefulness to the national media.

Just keep in mind that even though, for once, the media narrative seems to be turning in a way that will be helpful to Democrats and progressives, as an institution it is fundamentally oppositional to our goals. We may be getting lucky with it right now, but that is only temporary. It is a singular victory, and not part of a larger pattern or positive trend.

billicat:

I can get behind that, too.

I think that there is a way to seat Michigan and Florida. To keep arguments at a minimum, Obama can take his votes in Michigan, the Uncommitted in Florida, she can have her votes in both.

That gives her 192 and he gets 130 delegates. That puts him within 27 or so of the 2025 he needs and can close it in the reamining primaries.

That way, there will be no problems with the Black electorate, with disrepresentation of Michigan or Florida, and will keep Hillary supporters in the camp as well.

BTW, I'm all for what the demonstrators are doing in NY with Sean Bells' murder. It's time to get those 'Black Male' punchcards out of circulation!

Shu: "Some Black Americans feel the way described in your post, but that isn't the only point of view within the Black community."

I've tried to make this point all along. Why do we have umpety-million subdivisions of white voters, but all African Americans and Latinos get lumped in one group each? It's nuts. My point is not that there are no African Americans who feel the way you describe, but that there are (probably) many more who voted for Obama because he was, well, Obama. Being black was just bonus.

billiecat:

This is EXACTLY true and those that don't realize that there is a conservative element in the Black community really should beware.

What needs to happen among pundits and others, too is to be able to assess the impact Rush Limbaugh's 'operation chaos' had on the numbers for that hotly contested 'blue collar white' demographic.

After all, it absolutely isn't hard to realize that with 200,000 rogue voters 'stuffing' that demographic, the numbers for both Obama AND Hillary for that will be SEVERLY distorted, and may not reflect the actual mood of this portion of the electorate.

I would really like to see the pundits quit ignoring this, too!

Sorry, not Shu, 53_3.

billiecat,

Actually, I'm sorry, but I do have to dispute this portion of your claim:

"but that there are (probably) many more who voted for Obama because he was, well, Obama."

This would have resulted in some migration, but not 93%. I'm sure that there are those that did go with 'all things being equal, I'll go with Obama' but I havn't been hearing that.

What I have been hearing, widely, is that because she went racial, they will NOT vote for her.

53_3: "I think that there is a way to seat Michigan and Florida. To keep arguments at a minimum, Obama can take his votes in Michigan, the Uncommitted in Florida, she can have her votes in both."

I don't think you can logically give Obama the "uncommitted" votes, because at that time there were plenty of other candidates in the race, and all you can really say about the "uncommitted" is that they were "not-Hillary." That said, logic and politics are often at odds, and I suppose you could argue that the only "not-Hillary" choice at this point is Obama.

53_3: "I'm sure that there are those that did go with 'all things being equal, I'll go with Obama' but I havn't been hearing that."

You may be right, but until somebody with a Pew grant does a good poll, all we have is anecdotal evidence.

KathyR: But is the idea that Barack would use some of the $25 donations he's gotten from people who don't even have that to spare, and pay off Hillary so the poor ittle candidate doesn't lose any of her $109million? I don't get it.
----------------------------

Kathy this is very typical policy with campaigns. McCain is helping Rudy G. pay off his debts right now.

billiecat:

You may have a point, but I'm not sure that Obama would go for that.

It would not be reasonable for him to give her 192 delegetaes and him just 70.

This would go agains the general trend, however, as she does not lead him by 75% in the other races.

Given that both ways arent really representative, I was thinking of what might work behind closed doors, politically.

Stuart,

I agree with Bowers about the media narrative. I just want to point out that if one accepts what he says about the media keeping the Clinton campaign alive beyond Wisconsin then one cannot simultaneously characterize the media as being biased against Clinton. I've felt for a long time, well, since Wisconsin actually, that MSM have been keeping the Clinton campaign on life support purely for ratings. I don't fault her for playing along, but this is one of the main reasons I've never accepted the idea that MSM are biased against Clinton.

TK: via fundraising for Rudy, or by giving Rudy donations that have been given to him?

I have no idea what they can do, but I always assumed that the second those votes became meaningless, the delegates would get seated. I leave this to be sorted out by the geniuses who gave us this crazy (but in the end, I think, more constructive than not) nomination process.

I'm tired of Clinton supporters dismissing caucus states and uncritical folks in the media, folks like the estimable Karen Tumulty, repeating their faulty reasoning.

Tumulty writes:

the Clintons decided... that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters — women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs — were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires.

Haven't we in other, not-too-distant elections heard about how participants in caucuses generally ARE, in fact, older, while younger voters, prone to, I guess, youthful fickleness, can't be counted on to turn up at the appointed time and place?

So which is it?

billiecat:

I think if a detailed poll were to be conducted like you suggest, this could be resolved, but in the meantime, even anectdotal (and expert) knowledge is all we have.

Of course, the argument that that 93% support Obama has in the Black community can be attributed solely to the phenomenon you claim (the choice of Obama on race, all things being equal) is a VERY long shot, I'm afraid.

It's just not a tenable argument - especially when I've been hearing the majority of those I've talked to state otherwise.

53_3 - I never said 93%. That was your figure. I said "many more" voted for reasons other than the "racial" controversy. I don't know what the number is - I believe it is high, but I just don't know.

KathyR an TK,

Mark Shields said on the Newshour last night,

There are -- they're probably $20 million in the hole, I mean, $11 million to the Clintons themselves, $10 million to their vendors. And what the Obama people are concerned about right now is that will be one of the negotiating chips that the Clinton campaign and the Clintons will try and exercise for the -- for their support, endorsement, and all-out backing of Obama, that the Obama people raise that money.

I think it would be, quite frankly, foolish. It would -- there is precedent for it, but I don't think that -- I mean, a couple that has raised -- made $109 million in the past seven years, it seems that it's not a charity case.

My sense from that is it is not the norm for one campaign to pay off another's debt, but that is as much as I know about it.

SupterTD and TeresaK: As I said initially, I don't have a problem with Obama helping with fundraising - let's say some time after the election. But there's an unseemly air of extortion in the story as I've heard it. The idea that the Clintons would withhold their full and enthusiastic support unless Obama coughs up $20 million might be in keeping with their SOP, but its not likely to get her anything else she wants from the party, including another shot at the nomination. Not to mention that it sounds like politics as usual, and the GOP would find some way to use it against Obama (course they'll use it if he won't pay up, too). Thanks for the quote. I watched most of the Newshour last night, but missed Mark saying that.

TK--

I'm with Josh Marshall, who said that if the money is used to pay bills owed to vendors