http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmp2STYR1 Og&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor y/2008/3/1/184122/7822/813/467025

i'll ask again ,

at the end of this process will obama have the required delegates to win the nomination ?

She needs to win by at least 20 percent to get even close to the delegates needed.

As I recall, the Clinton folks said that she needed a win in Texas and Ohio. They never set their goal at a 20+ point win. You did that. Who's really moving the goalposts here?

Yep, there is no way for her to get the pledged delegate lead at the end of the primaries.

If she does squeek by in Texas and Ohio, it's only going to prolong this whole thing and give her campaign more reasons to get dirty.

I can just see her with lawsuits in Texas, Michigan and Florida. Ripping apart the Democratic Party and everything we have stood for.

I much rather her lose 3 of 4 States, make a gracious concession speech, and let Obama get down to business.

It will be sad watching all the super delegates, along with Gore, Dean and Edwards, force her from the race.

This delegate vote thing as the be-all & end-all is a rather new--historically--concoction.  Clearly, that is the ultimate goal.  Clearly also, the issue now is momentum and perception.  Just like it has always been.  People can count on their fingers and toes from here to kingdom come and they can yell about riots in the streets and they can stomp their feet.  But, this is a classic race--and, it has twists and turns.  Ohio and Texas are important, very important.  Right now, noone is set for the convention with the needed majority votes, so the mathematics become only one element in the calculus of momentum and direction.

I'm betting her poll numbers are higher! I think the reason she's gained is because she was the only presidential candidate to attend the energy forum held by the Greater Houston Partnership.

What people, who do not live in Texas, don't realize is the state economy revolves around the energy/oil sector! All the major engineering firms from around the world are here. Oil & Gas companies from every major corner of the world are here. Oil Exploration cos from the entire world have offices here and Obama's refusal to debate or attend pissed them off!

He basically, by his absence, told the population whose jobs are mainly related to these fields that it's of no importance to him.  Showing indifference by refusing to attend or debate pissed them all off  

This was probably the smartest move she's done up to date - she was extremely well received and got glowing reviews!

The RCP intrade has Obama winning PA even though she is ahead - what do the people who are putting their money on this thing know that you don't.

Sorry, but the pep rally won't change things. Absent a major victory for Clinton tomorrow in both Ohio and Texas, she is done. She's already lost half her superdelegate lead, and she'll soon lose the rest. Lots of soft Hillary supporters will abandon her if she doesn't come through with a 10-20 point victory in OH and TX on Tuesday.  MI and FL won't even matter in the end. Clinton has only two favorable states left - KY and WV. PA is already down to nearly even. The others are Obama blowouts.

If the Republican nominations were like a true Democracy, we would seat all the delegates according to the straw polls! RON PAUL is the frontrunner! Why in the world aren't the media idiots reporting this? What do you mean that nobody ever said that straw polls wouldn't ever count? Once they are counted, Ron Paul will become ahead and win the nomination! The McCain people may want to end this now, when their candidate is ahead, but its not gona (sic) happen.

R0N |=/-|UL R|_||_Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(/sarcasm)

Add up all of the hypotheticals in your post and you will see how dire Clinton's situation truly is.

Whoever has the most delegates going into the convention (Obama) will decide whether the MI and FLA delegates are seated. Since Hillary can't catch Obama in the pledged + superdelegate count, she cannot dictate that the MI and FLA delegates be seated.

I suppose in your true democracy only one person is on the ballot? Personally this reminds me a little less about a democracy than about deMOCKracies found around the world.

They aren't going to be seated. In fact, I wouldn't even want them seated even if Obama had the delegates (and mark my words he actually will when the supers get around to putting this race out of it's misery after Tuesday) to make them not matter.

It's really just grasping at straws, isn't it?  Talking about seating delegates selected by a delegitimized process, taking heart at some miniscule movement within the margin of error in a tracking poll, making plans for how to spin Clinton getting another narrow, single digit win against a candidate who has won 11 in a row by double digits and mostly by 20 points or more?  This thread seems to be about how even a tiny bit of momentum by Clinton (an upward trend in one poll) is of vital interest, but that a crushing tidal wave of momentum by Obama is meaningless.  

The superdelegates are telling the tale.  Obama has picked up around 50 in recent weeks and Clinton has actually lost several who pledged to her early.  Her campaign is dying.  Even if she pulls out a couple narrow wins, even in big states, she's toast.  We've seen in contest after contest that Obama's numbers outperform the public polls, which means that the undecided voters are breaking his way in droves.  If Clinton isn't significantly over 50% in the polls by election day, expect her to lose both Ohio and Texas.  

Have you studied previous Democratic conventions in the last 50 years? Are you aware of the many elements beside waffable (including "pledged") delegates?

Actually, if she wins Texas, the other events to which you refer become quite probable.

The only reason for her to keep going after 3/5 is to make a play to get her old friends among the Supers to throw the nomination to her despite the elected delegate count.

Nonsense.  The only reason for Hillary to keep going after Wisconsin (maybe after Super Tuesday) is that she enjoys running for president.  She knows it's good for the party and good for her friends, too.

Hillary likes being the candidate, being the center of attention, she obviously enjoys being on the national stage in a debate.  This is her last chance to be the focus of national attention like that and there is no reason she should quit before she has to.

Running is good for the party because Obama's turnout machine needs a good shakedown run in the key swing state of Ohio and could use one in Pennsylvania, too.  Ohio independents who turn out to vote for Obama or against Clinton will almost certainly repeat their established behavior and vote for Obama again in November so Clinton's persistence in Ohio helps ensure a Democrat in the White House next year.

Hillary's friends working for the campaign will have tens of millions more dollars shoved their way by the contributions Hillary is able to raise staying in the race.  Loyalty to those friends demands she stay in as long as she can raise cash to give to those allies, whether there is a chance of winning or not.

There are lots of Clinton fans here and around who still wish their favorite could be president.  The ones that are bad at math persist in talking about momentum or superdelegates or adding new state delegations overwhelmingly favorable to their candidate to the rolls at the last minute.  But Hillary is not bad at math and neither are her smart and competent inner circle advisors.  She hasn't believed she can win this for a long time.

Winning is not the only reason to run, though.  just ask Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.  Or Hillary Clinton.

If she loses many who supported her will be disgusted and sit out also because there is a feeling among most of us who support her that Republicans and Independents are choosing the Democratic nominee. Either way it is sad.

According to the most recent Pew poll, 89% of Democrats say they'll vote for HRC over McCain in November.  By comparison, only 80% of Democrats say they'll vote for Obama over McCain.  That's information that the super-delegates can't ignore.  

Far from the pumped-up Obama rallies, centrists who voted for John Kerry last time now say they are considering John McCain -- especially if the Democrat is the vaporous Obama. At least that's what many are telling me -- and I'm telling myself.

see whole article by Froma Harrop at:
chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlo ok/5550837

I'm not into putting much stock in polls right now, especially since the race is so fluid...

However, "shrill" as the Clinton campaign has mentioned, repeatedly, is a fairly loaded, sexist term. Perhaps you should refrain from using it, yes?

Is it coincidence that the shrill nature of some Obama supporters' attacks on HRC and her supporters have increased in the last few days?

Now that's funny.

Funny, same though went through my mind reading through some of the comments from Obama supporters on this thread. To be sure they sound extra shrill today. May be they sense this thing slipping away from them and are frustrated that people are beginning to examine Obama a bit more carefully and he can't close the deal. Some really stupid arguments are being put forward by these "irrational" Obama supported. Examples:

1. FL/MI do not matter because everybody agreed that those two will not count. But then everybody AGREED ALSO that superdelegates are "super" delegates and can vote whichever way they want. But now they want that suddenly a new rule should be created for superdelegates requiring them to automatically support the leader in pledged delegates. However, please leave the rules regarding FL/MI untouched .. Give me a break looks like they want to have it both ways just like their candidate wants to have it both ways regarding NAFTA (Or Iraq war, or Patriot Act, come to think of it).

2. Don't use Obama's middle name even in an initial like BHO. Once again enough with this fake outrage. If Obama is so ashamed of his middle name may be he should have considered legally changing his name (as it is possible most places in this country). Once again may be he wants to have it both ways. Flaunting his middle name when talking to his father's tribe and in US, please absolutely nobody must use the H word even the fucking H initial.

Who's on the Sunday shows this week? If she sends out Liebercrat Lanny or Bushdogs Bayh (think he knows he's fallen off her Veep list?) or Feinstein, that could backfire.

calculate all you want. If she win TX and OH even by the smallest of margin - HRC will stay in the race.

Senator Clinton all the way

The convention will not be brokered. The nominee will be determined before we get that far. I believe everyone involved in the process has said this. So I really don't understand what you're saying.

If a majority of the remainder of the unpledged (superdelegates) side with Clinton because she has won most of the large, diverse states and she appears more formidable in the GE, then so be it! The two candidates are separated by 9% in the total of pledged delegates so far, not including FL and MI, and the Obama supporters--including you--act like it's a pledged delegate blowout. Most voters don't even care to follow the pledged delegate count because it's different for every news organization and some pledged delegates can be changed at the state conventions anyway.

I don't know what else to say but that this is far from over. If you look at the counter on the front page, Clinton leads in the delegate count. So no matter of spreadsheets, candidate projections or  other such gobbledygook will convince me that Clinton is no position other than to win.

I don't see any major endorsement happening for her anymore.
People who didn't endorse her when she had it in the bag are not going to do it now that the atmospherics make an Obama win (whether on Tuesday or after a protractred brawl) look more than  mathematically likely.
Because that's what it comes down to. You guys are right to the extent she is not dead ... because she is still in the race. But there is no way, unless somethin SHOCKING happens which we have no reason to foresee, she will win more pledged delegates. And there is no way party bigwigs are going to let that last until the convention and let her try (she won't succeed since if she has less pledged delegates she can't control the credentials committee and can't seat FL and MI even if it was the right thing to do, which it is not) to overturn the majorite of the votes.

It won't happen. It just won't. Can't force her to leave and make it easy. But it won't happen.

You've posted this at least twice, can you back it up?

You people just don't get it. "Large states?" Is Mark Penn writing your blog entries too? So the only thing that matters is NY, CA, MA and NJ? Sadly, I think there are many Democratic strategists who really believe that. And I blame them for George W. Bush being in the White House.

I don't think anyone doubts Hillary will win Rhode Island

It's the only March 4 state she is clearly favored. Sadly, it's pretty small or, as her campaign likes to say, "insignificant." Her money can go for bacon cheeseburgers for Mark Penn but it won't help her get the nomination. She's lost half her superdelegate lead, with three coming to Obama every day.

It's not that hard when you realize that many voters who reliably vote Democratic do not identify themselves as Democrats in exit polls.

Especially considering half her superdelegate lead from Super Tuesday is gone already.

Your right this isn't the general election. It's not winner take all. It's the Democratic Primaries to select the nominee for the party.

There is a reason it is not winner take all. Because the Party has determined that the best way to select the best candidate and allow new blood into the system is to enfranchise the most voters in that selection process. This is why pledged delegates are apportioned. Winner take all gives you McCain, Bush and Dole, and another Bush - in other words old timers with vast name recognition whom the establishment wants. Oddly, the don't make the best presidents.

Candidates who don't want to honor the Party's process and say pledged delegates don't count, only big state wins count - are directly circumventing the Party's process and interests.

That in my book is a low road.

1.  Who cares?  This is the Democratic primary.  The winner more closely conforms to popular will under our system.

2.  Doesn't make any sense, since the EC is for the general election.  Either would win California, for example, so why would grafting the EC vote onto the Democratic primary tell us anything?

Here is a question or 2 for you to ponder

If Hitler had the bomb, would Germany have won World War 2?

If Bill Clinton had apologized and admitted the affair with Monica Lewinsky, would there have been an impeachment trial?

These questions, like yours cannot be answered.

We have a system in place and that is how the candidates are running.  Hypothetical questions mean less than nothing.  

It looks like that ad really hurt Obama.  He is going to have to fight back a lot harder next time.  

Your scenario there gives Clinton about a 10 delegate gain out of the night. She'll gain it all back in WY and MS.  Let's get expectations under control for a moment. A slight loss in OH and TX is nothing to worry about for Obama - and are you counting the caucus portion in Texas?

If that's the case, Wyoming and Mississippi become the firewall for Obama.  I was very dismissive of the 3am ad, but it may be a factor.

What MAY be succeeding are McCain's attacks--they may be having the effect of driving some voters back to Hillary.

So Pennsylvania is the main battleground and this contest will go to June.  But it had better end there.

Where I come from, if you throw around words like "slander" and "libel" in writing, you would be asked to prove it...or it may come home to roost on you.

be surprised how dishonest Obama really is  

see counterpunch.com "Obama Craze, count me out" by Matt Gonzalez, Nader's runningmate, who looks at all his voting record

i.e. Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as "pole-vaulting" over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum wage," and other worker protections.

Texas isn't a "heavily Red state"?  Funny that such wins only count against Obama.

He will not get out unless he falls behind in the pledged delegate count.  Almost everyone believes that Hillary Clinton would likely cost many Democratic officeholders(also superdelegates) their seats.  

Keep alienating the rest of America with your "insignificant state" crap. If anything Mark Penn should be banned from serving the Democratic Party ever again.

Is that how youre gonna do this?  Is Hillary gonna use Karl Rove's tactics to win this?  She pulls this crap and im going right over and voting for John McCain.

And none of those chargers stick or matter.

1. NAFTA/CTV - A bogus story based on one free trade U of Chicago economist acting without Obama's authority and whose comments to CTV were misinterpreted.

2. Rezko - Nothing there. Certainly nothing like Whitewater, and there was nothing there either.

3. Exelon - Not much of an issue, considering Obama did what he could to fix the energy bill while in the minority.

4. The blank slate ad has failed up to now. The scared children ad backfired as Obama shot right back about judgment - as he has throughout the campaign. Of course Hillary is too coward-like to question Obama's CofC ability in debate - even when prompted to.

5. The turban photo also backfired - it's even made the GOP look bad.

6. On health care reasonable people disagree on this. I think Obama's plan is more realistic but I don't begrudge Hillary's plan. This is a substantive difference and one that's been worked over in 20 debates.

7. Hillary was endorsed by Hugh Shelton. BFD. A lot of military folks despise the Clintons because of military cuts in the 1990s.  Having Hugh Shelton and Wes Clark in your corner doesn't mean much on national security.

8. Serious bloggers like Taylor Marsh? Are you kidding. Most of those bloggers you mention are Clinton hacks; why don't you mention the MyDD diarists. And what about Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias, Kos, Kevin Drum, John Aravosis, Oliver Willis, etc.

The country has seen the real Obama the last few months. And the country likes what it sees.

Hillary blew a 20+ lead in composite polling over the course of 2 weeks in 3 states, and lost more than 1/2 her lead in the fourth -- rhode island. Nationally, she's behind, delagatewise, she's behind... and if she was to be believed 2 weeks ago, she has to win both Ohio and Texas resoundingly to stem the tide...

...and you're saying Obama supporters are nervous because a single tracking poll shows movement within the MOE for Hillary?

That makes perfect sense. Remember Clinton's Razor!

They've seen the real Clinton for years.  They want someone else.

The turban photo?  Seriously?

You did not mention this big item regarding Obama.  Everyone needs to be aware of it!  Read this article just published in "The Nation".  Considering private contractors in Iraq are as big as our military there, Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq anytime soon.  Obama`s facade is revealing itself.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/sc ahill

This is alarming news regarding Barack Obama in the new publication of The Nation.

"A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in."

Further:
"from Jeremy Scahill: A day after this story went live on TheNation.com, Senator Hillary Clinton, whose staff refused for a week to answer my questions about her position on private security forces, released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq," saying, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." Read her full statement here. Her timing was interesting, to say the least. Why February 28, in the middle of a tough political campaign? Why not after last September's Nisour Square massacre, when Blackwater operatives killed seventeen Iraqi civilians? Or, better, before it? Regardless, this makes Clinton the most significant US political figure to date to issue such a call. We will be monitoring closely how much of a legislative priority this becomes for Senator Clinton

if it was about experience, right now we'd have Richardson, Dodd, and Biden fighting it out.  Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would have been the first to go.

It's a good question.  Even if we did allow the plebs to play a role in the nomination, clearly all of the results in "red states" would have to be thrown out because they might not vote the right way in the general election.  Unless, of course, it's a "red BIG state," in which case all of the votes shall count.

columbus specifically and I would say obama running ads at 5:1 to clinton. he had tons of them this morning and even had some during snl telecast last nite. I haven't seen one clinton ad yesterday or today. im not sure about the rest of the state. he is getting lot of help from the SEIU groups down here as well. I am beginning to think that obama will report a staggering figure for feb fund raising. it seems like they are spending with literary no restraints. where is clinton spending the 35 million???  

Latest Zogby tracking poll for Texas and OH:

Obama 47
Clinton 43

Ohio:
Clinton 47
Obama 46

My in-laws live in Dundee/Algonquin. My father-in-law is a rightwing nut but even he doesn't like Oberweis.