I was wondering if there would be another front page article to match the one where it was almost tied, but sure enough there was one.  Thanks!

Look, there is always a run against a 76yr old John McCain in 2012.

All Hillary has to do is to drag this out to the Convention, splitting the Party and damaging Obama enough to make sure a genuinely patriotic American wins.

If in the meantime it costs us a couple of SCOTUS appointments, who cares?

Should we expect her to drop out if she fails to take the upset, or do we move the goal posts again?

she should try to have her name removed from the NC & IN ballots because the race ends in PA.   And she & bill should not campaign there otherwise some people in the media might get the strange idea that PA is not the end of the race for the nomination :(

    I love how she's assumed she has won Pennsylvania.  She thinks it's a slam dunk.  I hope she isn't listening to the same advisers who kept saying that the nomination would be over on February 5.  

After she dissed Rev. Wright and her associate equated him to David Duke?

If anyone really thinks she can win I want some of what they're smoking.

his first blog for CBS News. Apparently, he is now an analyst for them...

At the time, he said the NC could be very important for Hillary and a good showing there followed by PA would be critical...

Sister Beezlebub and Senator SnakeOil have demonstrated that they care zero for the nation their party or anything but the mad lust for POWER!

A pox upon both their cult-infested houses.

Fortunately there is a solution. All we've got do is stand up, us millions of progressive Americans, and say:

I've heard enough; time for a real change!

And if you think I'm nuts you don't know your American political history pal.

once again for her to bring up Wright (right or wrong) when her chances rest on NC where they expect 30% of the voters to be AA is just not smart.

seriously her advisor's have no long range planning ability at all,

yes it will help with PA
but it will kill in NC then what?

as this diary shows expectations are that they will split thus leaving Obama in the lead.

I don't care what people think on the issue if NC becomes a must win for her, then attacking Obama on Wright when 30% of the voters will be AA and many of them will understand his feelings (especially when you listen to the full sermon)

well its just not a smart tactical move

It's the Bible Belt and half the preachers are goofy, black and white.

So if HRC wants to play the carpetbagger, let her try.

According to her standard, nobody in NC could ever hold elected office.

Look for some serious backlash against Hillary.

If she wins NC, she pretty much clinches the nomination. It would be stunning.

But if she loses, she still has reason to go on, particularly because of Puerto Rico.

Can you do Edwards and Kucinich now?

to the nomination.  NC or not, it ain't happening.  

Clinton supporters:  She doesn't care about you.  She's not on your side.  She just wants what's owed to her and she's happy to misuse your goodwill.

The title of this diary cracks me up.  There is no path to the nomination through NC for Clinton.  

Apart from moves that divide the party, there is no path to the nomination period.

She's won 1 state - Arkansas - by 60+%, which is the number she'd need in all remaining states to come even close in pledged delegates.  Reality check - this is not going to happen.

Super delegates are not moving her direction - they are moving away from her.  Could Wright stem the tide for her?  Maybe.  But not likely.  Richardson's endorsement came at the right time.  A Clinton ally speaking for Obama in the midst of the Wright coverage is damaging to her hopes to swing other SDs her way.  SDs won't overturn the winner of the popular and pledged delegate totals, which barring the 60% figure won't happen.

If anyone can show a realistic path to the nomination, that doesn't damage the party to further one individual's interest, I'll listen.  I haven't seen any persuasive arguments yet.

Believe me, this PPP outfit is on the ball.  I am from NC, and so is PPP.  I learned how good they were the day before the Texas primary, when I noticed that the poll they released that day showed a dramatic shift away from Obama.  I also noticed that they showed a shocking turnaround in the white male vote from Obama to Clinton.  I was scornfully skeptical so I called PPP.  He assured me it was not a mistake.  I said that was impossible.  They stuck by their numbers.  Only later that day did I learn that Rush Limbaugh had engaged his "Chaos' strategy against Obama and the Democratic party, leveraging white males to vote for someone they detested (HC) in that cause.

And so it happened.  PPP called the Texas Primary to a fault.

So listen closely to them, and their sudden 20 point turnaround in this NC poll.  This is no schlock outfit.  

How could it be this time?

Here's your clue: this is one of two state polls to be conducted in a timeframe to absorb the full impact of the Obama Philadelphia speech. Apparently North Carolinians were listening, and may have even figured out who was pulling the strings behind the entire Wright flare up to begin-with. (The other, in PA, conducted a little earlier, shows a narrowing of Clinton's lead to 10 points from 15 earlier this month.)

Well, boys and girls, it could be the Kitchen-Sink strategy has failed.  That's the good news.

The Bad News? I hate to think what the Clinton's have in mind for phase II of their "Tonya Harding" strategy.

Since there's no way to get to the magic number of delegates to clinch before the convention, all Kucinich needs to do is:

1) Re-enter the presidential race.

2. Convince the Super Delegates to back him.
   
3. Since pledged delegates are not legally bound to to support the candidate they are assigned to, Kucinich would need to peal off pledged delegates from both Obama and Clinton.

It is his RIGHT.

Good piece; informative and balanced.

Todd wrote-

"...which is why the Clinton campaign has dispatched Ace Smith, who spear-headed Clinton's California and Texas victories..."

C'mon Todd, stop doing HRC a favor by repeating that spin.  She had a whopping big lead in Texas a month before Mar. 4, and in the end Obama walked away with something like +9 delegates from that state if memory serves correctly.  Her popular vote in TX wasn't that big, either, given the size of the turnout.  And let's recall that just days before TX we were being told by every pundit in the busniness that Hillary needed huge, 20-point blowout wins to keep her campaign alive.  What ever happened to that narrative?   How in the world does a loss of nine delegates in a state that she was supposed to have a substantial lead translate into a big success for her operative Ace Smith?

She came out of March 4 basically even, and then Obama picked up 4 more delegates out of CA the next day as a result of their final certification, and he also got 3 new superdelegates that same day.  So for the March 4-5 dates, Hillary actually lost ground, yet somehow the media spun that into encouraging news for her.  WTF?  

Why do the goalposts continue to be moved for HRC?  The expectations are constantly being lowered to make her appear more competetitive.
I can understand why the MSM promotes this stuff--it affects their bottom line.  But why you, Todd?

Look at how Obama did in South Carolina and Virginia.  I really can't imagine why anyone thinks Hillary has a chance here.  If NC is a must-win for her, than she has already lost.

Hillary is becoming Tonya Harding

Do you hate the Democrats so much you're willing to let someone who's lost the election kneecap the one who did?

It makes me sick.

She's 150 pledged delegates behind. She is 700,000 votes behind. She is 14 states behind. When this is all over, Obama will lead in all of those categories.

The only way Clinton can win the nomination is if she can convince enough insiders to toss out the results of the primaries and caucuses. If that happens, you can pretty much kiss the Democratic Party goodbye, and the general election along with it.

So, when will anyone close to her give Hillary Clinton the news that she will never become president? Are her advisers really that scared of her? Has she slip'd the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God?

This delusion is damaging not just the party but America. Your loyalty would be admirable if it served any purpose at all.

Every day HRC's attempts to make headway in this personal glorification brings more disrespect for a once proud name. I wont recite todays sad tries, but you know them. I'm sure you winced, or in anger seeking vengeance for her loss, secretly goad her on.

Please, you know its over, you know she cant do anything but harm America. Stop feeding the fantasy.

I disagree profoundly.  North Carolina matters only if one follows the Howard Dean reconstruction of the Democratic Party nomination process.

At any earlier time, the Clinton big state wins--including the inevitable Pennsylvania--would have already secured for her the nomination, by virtue of winner-take all.  That is how it should be still, because the Electoral College remains largely winner-take-all and does not have caucuses.

North Carolina is a very reliably Red State, as is much of the South, the Mountain States and Midwestern column from the Dakotas on down.  And these are the regions in which Obama has best prevailed.

Whereas the reliably blue states and the most recent key bell-weathers, like Ohio and Florida, are very much Clinton's terrain.

So, to argue that Senator Clinton needs to do well in reliably Red North Carolina is only to advance the Dean-Obama argument that delegates, and not electability through the Electoral College, matter.

I believe that Senator Clinton would in fact carry Arkansas and Florida, prevail in all traditional blue states and do quite well in Ohio as well.  She has won all these state primaries, except for Senator Obama's own Illinois.  These primary wins in the reliably blue states and key bell-weathers give her more than enough electorals to be elected President.

Now, Senator Obama's case is just the reverse.  Winning North Carolina adds just another Red State to his column.  Winning any more mountain and Dakotas-down states just adds more Red States to his column.  Obama's victories in the caucuses of Maine and Washington does not necessarily mean he would have won those states had they been primaries.  But even if so, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, and the like--these have been blue really since the Clinton years, but the proportion of independents and swing voters in those states hardly make them reliably blue.

The point of the above is simple.  If one adds all of the Obama primary wins, mirroring the Electoral College mold, he is no where near the presidency, even if one factors in North Carolina and the remaining states in which he is expected to prevail.

Whereas if one adds the Clinton state primary wins and adds the remaining states in which she is expected to prevail, again, following the Electoral College mold, she becomes the next President.

When Governor Bayh of Indiana made this perfectly legitimate claim--the electoral strength of the state victories should take precedence, naturally the Dean-Obama Democratic coalition balked.

What Todd and others seem to miss is that we Clinton supporters believe that reliance on Red State and "fringe" (not reliably blue) state America is not enough reason to give a candidate the nomination of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  Even if that candidate has won many more states, and even if that candidate (and not now considering either Michigan or Florida) currently has a popular vote lead.

The Obama folk BELIEVE they would still prevail in Senator Clinton's blue states; they BELIEVE they could put certain Red States into play.

But that is an assumption.  Polling has often led the Obama people to believe they could prevail in those reliably blue states, but, aside from Illinois, they have not.  Polling also had them much closer than actual results in Ohio and Florida--real results show that Obama did dismally in both.  

And he will do dismally in Pennsylvania--ten points would be the best he could hope for, whereas the reality is closer to fifteen or twenty.  Conservative polling firms like Rasmussen and Quinnipiac had much closer polls for Obama in Ohio on the eve of the election there--even with a concerted effort to register "Democrats for a Day"--and Clinton still won in a blow-out.

The problem with Todd's assessment is that it follows the Dean/Obama assessment.  Winning Red and Fringe State America and doing poorly in reliably Blue and key bell-weather America is perfectly fine if one has the most delegates, and a popular lead.

Sadly, that does not mirror the reality of the Electoral College.

What in fact is being said by the Obama proponents is that the candidate of Red and Fringe state America should in fact represent the Democratic Party, even if he owes his wins in those states to scores of independents and Republican cross-overs.

This is the most blatant hijacking of a major party in history.  Red and Fringe State America are expected to play a bigger role in nominating a Democrat than reliably Blue and Bell-weather America.

Many party faithful, like myself and my family, representing generations of inveterate Democrats who have never voted any other way, simply cannot now vote for Obama.

We love our party's only twice-elected-since Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt--President and First Lady Bill and Hillary Clinton.  We take pride in their longest peacetime reign of prosperity.

The Obama minions--the scores he has brought along "from the other side," are asking that we hate them, just as they do.

No thank you.

After this year, if Obama is the nominee, not only will myself and my entire family vote for John McCain, but we will leave the "Democratic Party" as well.

Whatever it is now, it is not the party we were heretofore always proud to be a part of.  Even in the worst of presidential losses, our Conventions took pride in honoring our past leaders.

But that party is no more.  The Howard Dean Party has trashed our former President and First Lady.

Were this the MSM, of course--trashing the Clintons is what they do best.  Were this from Roger Alies or Karl Rove, well, alright, naturally.  Or talking heads like Matthews and Williams and Russert.

But trashing the Clintons--as racists, liers, thieves, perverts--from pro-Obama "Democratic Party" delegates?

No thanks.  Obama is a no-sale in my native Ohio, the most reliable bell-weather of the past one hundred years.

He just never fooled enough of us.  If the Clintons are to be trashed in what was once the Democratic Party, why should us Clinton supporters (the most reliable base) of that party now stay with it?

I feel that Senator Clinton and her husband have a most compelling reason to leave it should she not be nominated--the disenfranchisement of the millions of voters in both Michigan and Florida.

And she would have a most compelling reason to run independently.  She would easily best Ross Perot's numbers--and her scores of supporters would be there for her in the fall.

Which is why I believe no scenario from the blogosphere and the MSM would stop her.

One way or another, she will astonish pollsters and pundits--much as did her husband before her--and prevail.

Obama may have the lion's share of pundits, pollsters, newspapers, broadcast media, blogosphere, donor lists, and the Howard Dean machine on his side.

Whereas we have the Clintons.  This extraordinary power couple, survivors of Ken Starr panels, Right WIng hate groups, and Impeachment, always end up leaving their nay-sayers in the dust.

After what the Clintons have endured, being behind by a hundred or so delegates is child's play.

That is why they are so hated.  They endure and triumph.

We bedrock Democrats have the Clintons.  And that is all we need.

"voted in the 2004 primary, 2006 primary, or 2006 general."

PPP's "universe' omits those not old enough to vote in 2006, so they could be undercounting Obama's support.

Where does this 'stupid Howard Dean is the devil' mentality come from? lambros seems to think that Howard Dean reconstructed the Democratic nomination process. He is only one a a numberless horde.

Fact: Bill Clinton has been the titular head of the Democratic Party since 1992. The Clintons have had more power to shape the nominating process than anybody else in the party for a generation.

Query:  When did Sen. Clinton start complaining about procedural problems with the system her husband had such a hand in creating?
Answer: Not until her incompetent campaign had her losing a long string of contests she would have won with a minimally competent campaign.

Fact:  Howard Dean was made head of the DSC over the strenuous objection and active opposition of the Clintons.  Surrogates such as Carville were absolutely vile in their opposition.

Opinion: Ever since Dean became the lead of the DNC, the Clinton camp has waged an active war of attrition against him. Even though his 50-state strategy has already proven itself, the Clintons have undercut it.

Aside: This site used to ring with loud support for the 50-state effort. What has changed is not the validity of the approach, but who has assumed primary authorship at the site.

Further aside:  The 50-state strategy has always been about building party organizations at the state and local level. Its payoff should keep developing in election after the election, unless opponents take over and force the party back to the Clinton 11-state strategy.

Conclusion: So, if you want to talk about Dean as the bad guy in creating the 2008 delegate selection process, spell it out. What rule changes did Dean insist upon that somehow made the process unfair. But when you do it, please be honest enough not to just look at every situation where Clinton has lost and then search for a corresponding rule change. Do an honest evaluation.

Until then, quit scapegoating Dean.

One problem with this analysis: Hillary doesn't have a "path to the nomination" that runs through any state.  Her only path is to smear Obama so badly that he can't possibly beat McCain in the fall.  Then, perhaps the supers will nominate her.  However, even that is a long shot.  I think people will be so pissed off at her by the time she's done that they would nominate a party favorite like Al Gore instead.  Either way, Hillary won't be President.  

(After this year, if Obama is the nominee, not only will myself and my entire family vote for John McCain, but we will leave the "Democratic Party" as well.)

lambros
dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

What kind of dem are you oh wait the repub kind. Would you go on record saying 100 years in iraq is a good idea. Or hey lets give a bunch of very rich people tax brakes. sounds great, right? No I doubt you would say that.

If obama said he was dodging sniper fire and that turned out to be a lie what do you think would happen?
Once I had a person pull a gun on me I will remember that for the rest of my life. So I think if I had to run from a plane dodging sniper fire. That memory would stick around too.

She lied can we agree with this. I thought she was much cooler after I heard that. Too bad it was a bunch of BS....

And IF she has all this experence why the lies. Why?
Any Hill fans want to answer?  

just wait, no point to talk about NC before PA votes

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /25/175957/185/1007/484120

And it is a lot better than "Raining McCains"

News to me...

Lies about her experience that is the cornerstone of her campaign, compares Wright to David Duke, Carville compares her to Jesus, the campaign has a double standard for superdelegates who don't endorse her, can't have a race where she gets less than 62% of the vote to over take BHO in the popular vote...yea, she has a real path allright.