Personally, I think it's still all delaying the inevitable. I don't think, even with the Wright controversy, Obama's campaign will be seriously impaired, and if you think the superdelegates will override the popular vote/majority delegate count, I'd advice you to think again.

But, you're right, we'll just have to wait and see.

Maybe double digits in PA.

MAybe, and it still won't be enough.

Toss-up in NC because of a single poll? That's really reaching.

Obama will exceed 1627 pledged delegates by May 10.

Watch the Super delegates, Jerome. The party is getting sick of the infighting and want to see the fight taken to McCain. This will be put to bed within 6 weeks, max.

Well, I don't think this is over and I'm not calling for Senator Clinton to get out of the race -- she can still win, so that's rightfully her decision -- but I think you have overstated Senator Clintons chances.  Three of the states you listed clearly favor Clinton.  You rate another three toss-ups, which I would quibble with but won't.  Two favor Obama.  I'm not sure how that, in its totality, supports your characterization that "I also can't help but notice that Clinton does seem to have much better chances than Obama in the upcoming races"

Again, I'm not calling for Clinton to get out of the race and I'm not pushing the idea that the race is over.  It will be over when it's over.  But I do think you have consistently put forward the absolute rosiest picture for Clinton.  You could end up right -- who knows what will ultimately happen -- but I think its time to stop pretending that such a scenerio is either likely or represents a neutral view on what will happen.  

I think NC is still leaning Obama; but, a strong showing in PA can give, dare I say it, momentum? In IN, with the support from Bayh, I think Hillary will pull it off. Finally, Obama may exceed 1627, but that doesn't mean that superdelegates will flock, because FL and MI are not resolved.

if it gets to the convention or even before....can't the Superdelegates all get together and have a secret ballot with just the two names on it? Is there any rules for the SDs?

But for the benefit of the Democratic Party, don't you think Obama should drop out of the race.  The residents of middle America and the deep south are not going to get past the Wright videos. Rezko may be too abstract but Obama's speech, for all that was good about it, did not put to rest that he spent 20 years in that church with Wright as his minister.

And what about the allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior of Richardson? This is a worry to me, and I'm sure it will be to many  other Democrats.  See this from Clemons, last January?
http://tinyurl.com/25nt2j

Hillary Clinton will not win Oregon. Trust me Jerome.

Mark my words: Florida and Michigan will be counted. They are simply too important. There won't be any other choice.

Its funny how when Clinton was the presumptive (and entitled) nominee she held double digit (often in the 20s!) leads across the US. It would be great to see a comparison of 2007 polls and the results now. Point is, Obama has not even started campaigning and I cant think of a SINGLE instance where HRC campaigning has given strengthened her earlier polling...In places where she won (14 states) I believe she was WAY out ahead in all of these (if I am wrong, correct me...I am spitballing a little I admit). In the states that Obama won, he had to come from behind.

Obama is ON MESSAGE right now and his rallies (a la Oregon) are back on track. By the way - HE WILL BEAT CLINTON BY DOUBLE DIGITS IN OR and NC, that is a promise.

This post is just a little silly and doesnt really take into consideration the way the primary has progressed.

Obama is down now - a little - but with huge endorsements, campaigning, etc. I think we will see similar patterns. He - of course - will not win 10/10 but I think it will be a split or better. We will see.

Finally - can someone explain PR to me, why is it acknowledged (by everyone it seems, even Obama supporters) that PR will go to HRC? Just wondering.

It's premature for either side to be calling for the other to step down.. which has been happening a lot.  Even before the Wright controversy, some Clinton supporters gleefully pointed to one thing or another to demand that he step down.

To bolster these ridiculous demands from both sides, many commonly say "they won't get my vote and this many other people I spoke to say the same!"  It's childish, it's like saying "if I can't have the last cookie I'll stomp on the last cookie!  Wah."

Can't we Democrats agree and disagree in a respectful manner?

Comparing this to what happened in Florida in 00 is inaccurate and offensive.

Well said.

Youth vote either. But she won't get to the general. Not according to these figures.

And it's about OBAMA partisans not seeing the full picture...sigh.  You're better than this.  I'm sorry, this is really making me sad.

The point isn't fear; the point is that even with the most rosy outlook for a Clinton run you present (and one that is not impossible), she would not overtake Obama for either the delegate vote or the popular vote and even if you believe the superdelegates making up the difference is kosher, how likely is that if Richardson isn't even on her side and if she hasn't won a superdelegate in well over a month?  And if she does win based on that, do you really think the public or progressives are going to be ok with this?  The point is that her chances to win are by any impartial observation, almost nil.  Why some people want her out is not blind-Hillary hatred or Obama rooting, it's because they want the 8 years of neocon hell to be over and the more the mess goes on, the less we can focus on beating McCain.  

I believe you want this too...and I get you have little faith in Obama...I don't understand it, but I respect it.  But it's hard to read your constant anti-Obama piece after anti-Obama piece without feeling you're being willfully dense.  You've done more in politics and know more about it, probably, than I ever will...but this painting of people with one brush is beneath you....I hope.

Again, Clinton's claims to "having the pledged delegate lead," "popular vote," etc. will turn on counting states that didn't count.  All of Clinton's "paths" to victory will rely on superdelegates suspending reality to ignore that among the real pledged delegates and popular votes, she lost.  All of this is assuming she wins all the states you listed by significant margins, which she won't.

Its over.  We all know it.  And if she wants to sit around attacking Obama on a daily basis while hoping for lightening to strike, that's her right.  But if she succeeds in her apparent campaign to tear Obama down and cause him to lose to McCain in November, God help her in 2012.  Because alot of Obama supporters certainly won't.

...are fairly inaccurate this cycle.

Clinton was up by more than 10 in Wisconsin before Obama got there, and then there was a 20 point shift.

Given trends, Obama always eats into Clinton's lead significantly by the primary.  I can't give your analysis much credit when you say that Texas was a "big win."  She lost the delegate count, and the primary win was only 3%, max.  If this were winner-take-all, that would be a "big win," but it isn't, and saying such is just delusional.  Obama got more delegates out of Wyoming and Mississippi due to margins than Clinton got out of Rhode Island and Ohio.

Also, rosy speculation about Clinton's financial situation is a little bit disingenuous when we just had a report that they ended the second month in a row in the red.

Any "neutral" observer looking at this race would have to realize that all historical trends of how delegates get counted in this primary does NOT lead to suggesting that Clinton will be ahead in pledged delegates.  She'd have to win 56% in all remaining states to plausably do that, and 60% if you discount the states that Obama is likely to win.  

I'm sorry, but Wright hasn't hurt Obama that badly.  The issue has been de-fanged and we can expect trends and polling data to return to expected levels.

It's not my place to call for Clinton to bow out, but the numbers are against her, and I personally think that dragging the party through an increasingly ugly primary process is legitimately hurting our chances in November.  In my estimation, she should look to the future and realize that she can still get most all of her agenda done with Obama as president... unless her real agenda is being president at all costs.

With all due respect Jerome, if you think Michigan will be seated as is, you are living in a dreamworld and should not base any calculations on that.  Same for Florida.

Jerome,

You are a voice of reason in the progressive blogosphere.

Obama and his supporters are worried that the longer this goes on, more will come out about his policies and ties, and the less are the chances that he will be the nominee.

That is why they want to shut this down. They are worried about the fallout from the Wright controversy.

With no caucus wins to shift the narrative teh focus will remain on Wright until Obama quits that church.

This is also the reason he doesn't want to face Hillary in MI and FL. He is trying to run out the clock.

He should embrace a re-vote in MI and FL and try to beat Hillary fairly in those states. If he can beat her in those two states it will give him legitimacy and he would have won the nomination fairly and squarely.

The momentum is now with Hillary and the first demographically friendly state Obama faces is NC which is not until late May.

Pennslyvania is the point of no return.

If Obama , his allies in the media and in the political class cannot get her out before Pennslyvania , She would not get out before the convention.

It would be trouble for Obama for 3 reasons,

1) Pennsylvania would further show Obama's collapse among white voters . Supers are going to be watching for that on that day . I actually think that will be the most important story coming out of that night and they would be watching to see how much damage had been done.

2) It would further show is inablity to able to working class voters, downscale voters , reagan democrats.

3) Women are going to power Hillary clinton to a double digit victory in Pennsylvania and believe me her victory speech after Pennslyvania will be different from the others you have watched and would be directed at the super delegates .

4) Polls are beginning to show her doing better than him state to state and nationally head to head .

His card of saying I perform better than her with Mccain is gone.

Would be fun to watch , even though the math is tough for her but it is not all about the math

Rasmussen now has Hillary up by two nationally, for the first time in a couple of weeks.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

I'm for HRC. She won't win Oregon.

While Obama supporters remain extremely worried about Clinton's chances of winning, and her state of campaign finances. I can't help but recognize that the call to shut down the nomination battle before all the votes are counted, is unfortunately reminiscent of the Bush supporters mantra against Gore in Dec of 2000.

Where is this call coming from? Cite the sources, please.

If The Clintons and their campaign were running a clean one there would be no harm in carrying it all the way to the convention. But in light of the constantly divisive tactics and open attacks (such as comments like this one above) by a campaign that admits it only has a 10% chance of winning, all that is being accomplished is helping McBush lay the groundwork for his fall campaign.

And if Obama were the one with a 1 in 10 chance, this thread would be about calling for him to quit.

The next time MyDD calls for Democratic unity, there will be mockery in reply after all that some of the proprietors of this site have done, and are doing, to undermine it.

the world through rose colored glasses!!

NC and Oregon are hardly toss ups.  Those are both likely Obama.

Frankly, so is Indiana.  Indiana's last poll was done in mid-February.  Clinton was at 25%, with Obama up by 15.   Maybe that's changed, but name me another poll from any midwestern state where Clinton didn't break 25% among Democrats?   Big uphill climb for her there.

Turning the corner on her finances?  Ummm....not really.  Her big February haul was padded with loans and transfers from her Senate account.  Of her $33M cash on hand, about 2/3 of it is General Election only.

She started March in the red, compared to Obama with about $30 million to spend.

I'm not the least bit concerned about Clinton winning.  It's not going to happen.

What I am concerned about is Clinton's efforts to nuke the likely nominee and hurt the party's chances in November.  Any Democrat worth their salt would have the same concerns, quite frankly

This post is so off on so many levels it's not even funny.

First, did you see Jonathon's post on campaign finances?  HRC is in debt with little prospect of matching the Obama haul.  Obama's contributions are way up since the race speech. He will saturate markets until HRC loans herself anopther five millions.

Second, polls are turning at all levels since mid-week with a long time to go. What you describe as toss-ups are actualy at or outside margain of error with Obama leading.  Remember TX and OH three weeks out? (Objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear.)

Third, Obama is on the ground in every state and on the air, not quite at saturation levels in PA. HRC is not. HRC cannot match advertising in PA or NC. Obama has had huge events in Oregon over the past two days. HRC at home in NY.  Advance teams are arranign huge events in NC and IN as we speak.  Obama is back to the strategy of plaing states ahead of HRC...she will focus almost exclusively on PA while he is in OR, NC, IN, MT, etc.

Fourth,  Bill has once again shot off his mouth to the detriment of the HRC campaign.

Fifth,  Richardson endorsement on the heels of "the speech" will continue to move superdelegates to commit publicly.  They have already committed privately and are surrently "wait and see."  Wait and see is now over.

Sixth, Obama has coat-tails, HRC does not (evidence Il-14 and otehrs).  All undecided delegates, super and pledged will look to this factor first in determining support.  Quite frankly, it's not even close in terms of coat--tails.

who was given the unenviable job of telling Bill and Hillary Clinton that the show as over, the day was done.

His message was not the American public, though it is good for that too, it was for the Clinton Campaign. Clean respectful, but clear message, your time is up.

One can hold onto the "10 to 1" exaggerated chance that the Clinton campaign announced, or the slim to none of the NY Times, or the desperation of true fans. [legally called stalkers in most states].

But that is importance of "old friend I watch the superbowl with him" Bill Richardson.

That is why he went out of his way to emphasize that he is their friend. Thats why he had to wait so long, so he could call the game. Thats why HRC is in 'easter seclusion' at the farm.

The policy differences between these candidates are not worth the bile and division being produced.

HRC is not defeated, she is one of the most powerful people in history, and will continue to be so. Where policy differences occur, I am very sure that HRC will be a leading voice in the Senate to improve Barack Obama's suggestions to congress.

Yeah and what about that silly women's vote?  And the Reagan Democrats.

I don't think either candidate is going to win the Generals.

I do think Obama is weaker -- the Wright effect.

Funny how states that Obama is favored in according to polls (NC Obama has consistently led, Indiana Obama had a double digit lead less than a month ago) become "toss ups", but Clinton favored states become "double digit".  Until you get into June, every contests seems to have fallen Hillary's way according to Jerome's analysis.  Funny how that works out.

On the surface it looks bad, as we are constantly reminded by the Obama folks calls for shutting it down, but when you look at the real numbers it is not that bad. I'll do a diary on the details pretty soon, but here's what I can forsee happening.

Clinton wins the remaining primaries, except NC, by huge margins. This brings her to within about 50-75 pledged delegates, when they go to the convention. The Obama people are screaming that it has to be over, respect the will of the voters.... If MI and FL were seated, not as is, in a proportion equal to polls and other recent primaries, that would be enough to give the nomination to Clinton or at least make it a draw. So, of course Obama will fight it, but it means that there is a strong arguement that the will of the people is not being served without at least factoring MI and FL in some way. At the convention there is a big fight over seating MI and FL delegations, which Clinton probably loses, but it makes it very clear that Obama is trying to get the nomination by disenfranchising these two hugely critical states, which will destroy his chances in the fall. The spectacle of this anti-democratic maneuvering, plus the clear Clinton momentum coming into Denver, and obvious concerns about Obama's electibility (particularly if his polling looks terrible) could be enough to convince 50+ superdelegates to brave the media/Obama storm and nominate Clinton.

I don't think this is a longshot at all, and I think the Obama people know it. That is why they will be intensifying their calls from here on in for Clinton to do the right thing and drop out.

She should definately stay in and fight all the way. She still has a very good chance to win this. Carry on Hillary. Great front page Jerome.

In other news.

Pledged delegate counts:
  Obama - 1,413
  Hillary - 1,242

Needed to win: 2,024

Jerome,

Thank you for taking Singer off the top of this page.  If he stayed there much longer, I'd have bannished myself from your page.

No word yet as to who is the chosen one!

Similarly exaggerating when he says "big wins in TX"  At best she eeked it out.  The argument could certainly be made that it wasn't a win at all.

You remind me of the Harvey Keitel's character 'The Wolf' in Pulp Fiction, coming in cool, calm and capable to clean up the messy bloodbath caused by Obama hysteria, with the party's interest in mind.

Keep goin.  You da man!

Where to begin:

Isn't it ironic that the states that have long been viewed as Obama-favored states (Oregon, NC and Indiana) are all "Toss-Ups" according to Armstrong -- even if Clinton wins them all the margin will be razor thin and will not move the delegate count in any marked way.

Armstrong makes no mention of FL & MI -- w/o them there is no way Clinton takes the lead in any key indicator (pledged delegates, states won or the popular vote)

Armstrong is the only one who views Clinton's current finances as strong - most national publications have reported that Clinton is virtually in the red in terms of the primary $.

It is also funny that Armstrong continues to use the additional delegate counter which includes FL & MI's earlier results to show Clinton in the lead. Please take this down. Everyone knows these numbers will not stand as is.  At best, Clinton will only get half of the delegates.  

I look forward to reading more of Armstrong's diaries.  They get more desperate by the day.  

OBAMA08
 

"While Obama supporters remain extremely worried about Clinton's chances of winning,"

Another in your long line of intellectually dishonest posts, filled with self-serving spin and an unwillingness to face reality.

What this Obama supporter is worried about is that ever day you and the Clinton campaign spend reinforcing Republican memes about race and national security you are damaging our party's chances of winning in November.  

Jerome, it is time for you and other Clinton followers to face some hard questions:

Have you looked at the cash-on-hand numbers? You call NC, IN, and OR toss-ups?  Care to put your money where your pixels are?  I will make a personal wager that Obama wins all three.  I will further wager that Obama will have a minimum pledged delegate lead of over 120 when the votes are all counted, and that he will be ahead in SDs by June.  

It is amazing that you all seem to think Obama is soft, and yet, he is emerging from the Wright controversy with little long-term damage, and he is tough enough to shut down MI and FL.  You are most likely only postponing the inevitable.  

Whatever slim chance Clinton has of winning the nomination is almost entirely based on trying to make him unelectable in the fall and then persuading the SDs that they have to overturn the will of the party because she and her followers have succeeded in damaging him.  Do you want to be a party to this effort?  Is this your idea of "Crashing the Gate?"  Do you want to help the establishment candidate knee-cap the first insurgent, the first AA, the first netroots driven candidate to have achieved frontrunner status?

Your intransigience is damaging the party, damaging our most likely nominee's chances in November, and damaging what remains of your own credibility in the netroots.  You and most of the hardcore Clinton supporters need to take a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror.  What are you trying to do and what tactics are you willing to use in pursuing your goal? Are you willing to parrot Republican memes?  Willing to exploit racial tensions?  Willing to risk the consequences if you and your candidate loose?

I'd advise the Obama supporters to be calm.

Recent diary titles at MyDD:

Obama was 'present' when Wright PUNKED the USA!! (Currently top recommended diary)

What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know it? (Yet another diary on Wright, hoping against hop, that the story will be enough to push Hill over the top.)

I Can't Be Upfront.... (A diary that cites littlegreenfootballs with "proof" that Obama is a secret Palestinian-lover and anti-Semite.)

Interesting Obama Bill... (Asks why Obama did not introduce legislation in Illinois state senate banning hate speech. Seriously.)

Now, who needs to remain calm, again, Jerome?

Thanks for the chuckle...

it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Clinton campaign to find a way to pull this out.  She must win 64% of all "automatic" delegates available in order to take the lead.  Now it's not impossible, but it is maybe reaching.

I've been critical of Jerome's attitude toward Obama, especially wrt rev. Wright, but he's dead right about this--there are still plenty of votes left to be counted and it's clear that both candidates will have a plausible claim to victory at the end of voting, before the super-dels decide. Those clamoring for the contest to be shut down now seem to be afraid that Clinton is going to come storming back and overtake Obama not just in popular vote, but also cut into his pledged delegate lead significantly.

Even though I'm rooting for Obama, I'm perfectly happy to let this thing play out--a hard fought primary puts both candidates to the test and, in the end, strengthens both of them, that is, as long as we all don't lose sight of the big picture, and that is for both candidates' supporters to rally behind the "winner". Because either of our great candidates is infinitely superior to McCain, the cranky old idiotic know-nothing grandpa.

And at the end of the day, even as an Obama supporter, I see a lot to like about Hillary. She's a fighter, and part of me wants to see the Clintons get back in the white house so I can watch all the wingers' heads explode in deranged hysteria.

And if she wins after the savage and unfair treatment she's received from the press for 20+ years, that would be some serious poetic justice.

May the best Democrat win, I say.

Both sides agree that majority of the democrats will support whoever the nominee is.  So why don't Obama supporters just let it play out.  If you are so sure that Obama is going to win, then you have nothing to worry about.

* The party/country will be divided.

• Let's begin the healing process.
  
• We should unite behind the nominee/president.

All arguments made for Gore to concede to Bush in 2000.  Looking back - all those points were dead wrong.

Ignore for a moment, that an overwhelming majority of delegates have been chosen by this point. Ignore, for another moment. that with the way the super delegates have been shaking out, that she would have to win over 60% of all contests from here on in, and then get the approval of over 80% of all super delegates that are left. Reality has a cold hard feeling to it, but its still there. Frankly, I don't care if it goes on till June, because its simply extending the campaigning that would have to be done anyways.

I am calm Jerome, very calm.

the first sentence of this is comical...Obama supporters worried about Hillary's chances The only thing I see from Obama supporters (me being one of them) is the possibility of over-confidence (which I think we must work to counteract). Nearly every sentence of this post is premised with a statement that is exactly 180 degrees from the actual situation, making it a "through the looking glass" kind of analysis. I think, actually I am confident, that Jerome wrote this to bait us all into making the kinds of over the top counterarguments that in turn keep his troops fired up. Lets not oblige him here. Lets keep working for our guy, engage politely, and wait to see what Jerome has to say when Obama wraps this thing up.

Obama will probably sow up the nomination if he can hold Hillary's expected victory in Pennsylvania to single digits.  If Hillary wins the Pennsylvania primary by 15 points or better, the Obama campaign will definitely be in a state of duress in the wake of the Wright fiasco.  For a point of reference to my contentions, consider Hillary's margin of victory in three states:  Texas was about 7%, Ohio was about 10%, and in liberal Massachusetts, it was 15%.  Pennsylvania could make or break either campaign---or not, if margin is in between.  That's the reality that I see.

say it was too early to call the Reagan/Mondale race because not all the overseas ballots had been accounted for?

Simple Black VP ideally Obama

And that's BEFORE Obama's victory in the primary elections and caucuses was taken away by insiders.  That would play well in the AA community.

Give it up, guy.  I mean, really.

I'm old enough to remember US News & World Report's map in midsummer 1964 showing how Goldwater could get to 270 electoral votes.  It was already clear that Goldwater was going to get hammered, and it was an exercise in delusional thinking, giving the faithful some straw of hope to grasp.

You get the idea.

In your case, it's FL and MI.  They're dead, man, they're dead.  Delegates for those states will be determined - after someone (almost certainly Obama) has 2024 delegates, wrapping up the nomination.

And then there's this:

You should also be informed that the rules do not say that, therefore, the candidate with the greatest number of pledged delegates in the winner.

Agreed: they do not.  The Democratic Party is free to choose its nominee however it wants.  It's all a question of legitimacy, though.  If the Democratic Party isn't going to be a democratic party, then what remaining core value does it have?  

Seems that that's a problem you raised in that book of yours, right on Page 1: the Democratic Party, you and Markos said, was "lacking the expression of any core principles."

That book, by the way, had something to do with the need for "people-powered politics" (to quote the front cover) to replace a politics dominated by elites.  I quote from the flyleaf:

Crashing the Gate lays bare, with passion and precision, how ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated the Democratic Party establishment has become...

And now you want those "ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated" elites to overrule the results of the voting.

Yes, they can do it.  They have that power.  But it seems to me that the Jerome Armstrong of CTG would have been pretty upset by their doing so.  What happened to that fellow, anyway?  Can't say I've seen him around much lately.

I think what is frustrating to me is how the MSM has one picture to paint, and then if you dig into local media, you find a completely different picture on the ground.  The negative, personal attacks that are constantly launched by the Obama campaign, combined with the glaring media bias, is what turned me from an Obama supporter to a Hillarista.

But..

Ultimately I want us to have our strongest candidate.  And what supporters from both camps are starting to realize is this - We cannot do this without all of us coming together at some point.

So I wish the media would stop eating up the "inevitability" math that Axelrod keeps spinning up.  The truth is that neither candidate can win without superdelegate intervention.  The truth is this is not a pledged delegate contest.  The truth is that the popular vote is still in play.

Look at North Carolina.  It was assumed this state would go to Obama because of the divisive racial politics that had been so successful for him in SC earlier.  But as more recent polls indicate, Hillary has all but erased his lead.

Why don't we let these candidates campaign on their merits, allow these revotes to proceed, so that everyone, in both camps, can feel as if we have had a fair contest?  Because, ultimately, if one half of the Democratic party feels cheated, or that the results are not legitimate, then we are going to have John McCain for at least four years.

This issue is going nowhere.

Obama put it to bed on Tuesday with his brilliant speech.

While Obama supporters remain extremely worried about Clinton's chances of winning

Not at all.

Obama already has it all but wrapped up, but we are extremely worried that Clinton will damage the Nominee with her vicious attacks.

We are working hard to get "typical white ladies" for HRC in Primary.

I hope your Obama does good and wins primary for all those who want it. That being said he will never win the GE and he only has himself and his "Mentor" to blame!

Remind me again how many delegates each candidate got out of Texas?

Please, we're not fools.  Stop repeating the flasehood that Hilary won Texas.  The primary season is a contest measured in delegates so don't come back at me with popular vote arguments.

Football teams don't argue that the win or loss should be reversed because they had more total yards of offfense.  That's because it's a contest measured in points.  Everyone knows this.  To argue otherwise just looks desperate.

A question, Jerome (my apologies if this has already been asked and answered; if so, please point me to the relevant thread): If, after all of the primaries and caucuses are over, Obama retains a significant margin in pledged delegates (at least 50 pledged delegates), will you at that point accept that he should receive the nomination? If not, and if you instead believe that, even in that circumstance, that the superdelegates should award Clinton the nomination, what chance do you believe she would have of winning at the head of a divided party, many of whose core constuencies feel that their candidate has suffered a grave injustice?

It is, I think, both demonstrably false, and deeply insulting, for you to suggest that the only reason an Obama supporter would urge Clinton to withdraw is in order to "shut down" the process before she overtakes Obama. Comparing Obama supporters' position to that of the Bush crowd in 2000 just ads insult to injury. Most, if not all, Oabama supporters who want Clinton to withdraw are motivated not by any fear of Obama losing to Clinton, but by the fear that her relentless campaign of character assassination will, if it continues, seriously undermine Obama's prospects in the general election. It is, unfortunately, a very legitimate fear.

It is worth noting in this regard that the issue here is not whether Clinton "has a right" to remain in the race. In terms of process, she obviously has the right. She also has the right to change her platform and become a vigorous advocate of an immediate US invasion of Iran, Syria and the Britsh Virgin Islands. She also has the right to endorse John McCain. However, just because someone has the right to do something, does not mean he or she should do it. The relevant question is not whether Clinton has the right to remain in the race, but whether it is in the interest of the Party, and of the country, for her to remain in a race she has no realistic chance of winning and to pursue a campaign strategy predicated on destroying the image and electability of the Party's presumptive nominee.

Even people who prefer Clinton should be able to recognize at this juncture that it makes no sense morally for her to remain. Politics is not about individuals, or their ambitions. It is about right and wrong and the human consequences of the choices that candidates and voters make. If Clinton persists in her attacks, and Obama ends up losing the General Election by a small margin, those who are now attacking Obama supporters for urging Clinton to withdraw with have a long four years to reflect on the real world consquences of their short-sightedness and sectarianism.