Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow made an interesting observation: every time Hillary Clinton wins a primary, the narrative in the media becomes about counting down to the next "make or break" contest as though a loss for her would in fact end the campaign. Clinton keeps winning "when she needs to", of course, so the theory hasn't really been tested but Maddow I think quite rightly called this phenomenon the primary election equivalent of the Friedman unit. "2 more weeks...6 more weeks...2 more weeks." Adam Nagourney in today's NYTimes is a perfect example:

Even with her comfortable victory on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton still faces significant, though certainly not insurmountable, hurdles to securing the nomination, and it remains possible that her candidacy could come to an end in as little as two weeks, when Indiana and North Carolina vote.

Maddow's point, of course, is that this is a ridiculous assertion and the media needs to stop falling for it; no matter what happens on May 6th, this. primary. will. continue. Hillary Clinton signaled as much with the timing of a couple upcoming fundraisers. From Ben Smith:

My colleague Ken Vogel notes that Clinton has planned two fundraisers -- one with Hillary, Chelsea, and Dorothy; one with the Arkansas delegation -- for the day after Indiana and North Carolina.

Another media narrative that gets propagated every time Clinton wins another primary is how bad the continued race is for the Democratic Party. Again, Nagourney, whose article, I should point out, is linked on the frontpage of Huffington Post with the alarmist headline: "And The Winner Is: John McCain," provides a case study:

For better or worse -- and many Democrats fear it is for worse -- the race goes on.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain.

I must give credit though, MSNBC's post-primary coverage today has given much air time to the opposing view. The heads of both the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Parties were interviewed separately but essentially said the same thing: the energy and the boosts in registration and operations on the ground that the extended primary is affording their states will be good for the Democrat in November. And I just caught Matt Stoller on MSNBC as well, essentially re-iterating the spirit of his "Democrats Are Going To Be Fine" post from last night:

ANCHOR: Do you think Pennsylvania even matters?

STOLLER: Yeah, we have a huge registration advantage in Pennsylvania, activists are excited, voters voted, it was really good for Democrats. Democracy is a good thing. Now I think both candidates, Obama and Clinton, are leading McCain in Pennsylvania, so it's good.

What Matt is referring to here is this morning's Rasmussen Reports story "While Campaigning for Primary, both Democrats Gain Ground on McCain":

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to compete against each other in Pennsylvania's Presidential Primary, both Democrats have opened a lead over John McCain in the Keystone State.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds Obama leading McCain 47% to 39% and Clinton with a 47% to 38% advantage. That's a significant change from a month ago when McCain was essentially even with both Democrats.

It's no accident that the talking heads who've been most ardently pushing the "Democrats in disarray" narrative have been rightwing pundits who have an interest in projecting their opposing party as weak. It would be nice if such a pillar of the liberal blogosphere as HuffPo didn't join the fun.

Update [2008-4-23 14:12:15 by Todd Beeton]:Along these same lines, Bill Daley, Obama's National Co-Chair, made a good point a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

But this is a tough process and as Senator Obama has said he's introducing himself, he is still new to the American people and so in a strange way this process may be very good for him in that he is able to go to parts of this country and make the case as a new fresh face on the American scene that he can make a difference.

Hats off to the Obama team for a very strong win in South Carolina.  I credit their win to a strong GOTV effort and organization, especially of the African American community.  In the run-up to the primary I missed the stories hinting at the strength of that machine.  The first hint of that came from Jim Clyburn here.  I'm not saying the Congressman overtly told people to support Obama.  But in retrospect it seems that the Obama team must have benefitted from Clyburn's efforts whatever his intent was.  And Matt Stoller has a great follow-up description of that organizational strength that goes a long way toward explaining how Obama blew away the competition by outhustling them.

I just read an extremely disturbing post by Taylor Marsh.

I have always felt that both Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller, even before they left MyDD were very unfair to HRC. However, I am a Clinton supporter and tend to take criticism of HRC and the Big Dog to heart. Both Chris and Matt have criticized HRC extensively on her policies and stances, which I believe to be fair game. But is targeting Chelsea Clinton fair game?

Matt insinuates in Is Clinton a Weaker General Election Candidate that Chelsea is "greedy" because she works for a Hedge Fund.

...the Clinton's have, how to put it, real character issues. I haven't written this before, because I don't believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue, but Chelsea Clinton, despite the opportunity to do anything she wants, chose to be a hedge fund manager. What does that say about the Clinton family commitment to public service?

Matt goes on to say:

I write this because Clinton is using her daughter in an ad that says 'My Mom taught me to stand up for myself, and to stand up for those who can't do it on their own', and then express pride at passing those values on to her daughter. What kind of value system is that? And what does it say that Clinton is bringing her daughter into the contest bragging about her daughter's greed? This is one small example (Mark Penn is another), but it's pretty clear that the Clinton's have become in some ways Bourbon-esque aristocrats.

Matt further says:

Clinton made a choice to bring her daughter into the Presidential contest. Why? I don't know. But if she's going to do that, then it makes sense to look at those values. And they don't show a commitment to public service, unless you think hedge fund work is public service.

Am I missing something here? What's the crime in Chelsea supporting her mother? What does her choice in careers have to do with anything? Wouldn't any daughter or son support their parent's choice or decision (unless you're Rudy Giuliani's children)?  Think about it.  Even Mitt Romney's children hold substantial roles in his campaign.

Please read Matt's post and Taylor's post in its entirety.  I agree with Taylor Marsh and find Matt's post to be over the line. Also it's Matt's blog, Open Left that proved the meme "Clinton's a Weaker General Candidate" is wrong when it did an Electoral College analysis using state-by-state, head-to-head candidate match-ups.  

The bloggers and activists who make up the Florida Netroots are having their own conference at the Florida Democratic Party Convention on Saturday October 27.  Please help us make this event a success by donating via Actblue.  Check out our schedule:

Cross-posted from Florida Netroots

Once upon a time, not so long ago, a novice political blogger opened up her big fat, um, keyboard and suggested that there be a blogger panel at the Florida Democratic Party Convention.

Last week, DailyKos had a diary that intentionally attempted to impugn John Edwards character.

Unfortunately, the diarist used the perception of change in John Edwards to make a conclusion that I view as grossly incorrect.  The theory was prefaced as such:

He says he regrets the war vote, yet there is solid evidence of his cheerleading leading into the war.

It is not contradictory, let alone dishonest, to have supported a vote in the past and to regret that vote.  In this case, it is called progression.  The conclusion of the diarist is if John Edwards is different, he must be a panderer, an opportunist, and a fraud.

That is obviously incorrect as people change on a daily basis and it isn't for some sinister purpose.  Also, the obvious contrast with Bush's absolute stubbornness is actually quite complimentary to John Edwards.

The progressive policies and plans that John Edwards is putting forth, speak for themselves.  This has lead to the acceptance by many that John Edwards is the most likely to succeed in implementing progressive ideas.  Therefore, the question that is being asked is not so much how he is different, but why is John Edwards different?

Last December Matt Stoller proposed the bar fight primary.  He brought this idea to my attention during a recent bloggingheads.tv episode.  So I used "the google" and found his original diary on HuffPost.  Stoller started of by reminding us that,

"When Ronald Reagan announced his Presidential run in 1980, he did it in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the town where three Civil Rights workers were killed."

Stoller then stated:

"Opening his campaign on a site that fully repudiated equal rights for blacks, that in a very real sense murdered liberals, was a way of saying to the emergent right-wing Confederate base that 'I am with you, I hate who you hate'."

Who has your back as you enter the saloon?

I'm really pleased to see the great work being done by Todd Beeton, Jonathan Singer, and of course, Jerome.  I'm particularly excited for the anti-NRA campaign, as they are obviously a cornerstone of right-wing power and someone should take them on directly.  At my new home, OpenLeft, we've already had a bunch of significant discussions that are bearing on progressive power.  Here's a sampling:

• The most significant discussion on the site was with Chris Bowers and Maren Hesla of Emily's List, on why so many top-tier female House candidates lost last cycle while male candidates won.  Chris's intitial post is here, and Hesla responds here.

• The awesome-est conversation was Living Liberally's discussion of the Transformers, which I haven't yet seen to my eternal 7 year old boy shame.

• Chris Bowers has an analysis of momentum from Iowa, and a piece titled 'Democratic Nomination Campaign Dangerously Stable'.  He has also done some good reporting of where Presidential candidates stand on leaving troops in Iraq.

• I'm doing a series on the iPhone, and the net neutrality/internet freedom issues surrounding the release of the phone and the upcoming sale of a huge chunk of the public airwaves next week.  

• I also wrote a piece on the Sierra Club's new partnership with Moveon and Brave New Films taking on Fox News and Home Depot.  This is the first time a major non-internet advocacy group has taken on Fox News, and it's an important coalition to watch.

• Mike Lux has a good piece on how Democratic insiders failed in the 1970s titled 'The assumptions of taking for granted that you are a majority', and Living Liberally has jokes and stories from around the country.

• We're also looking at races in Washington's eighth and the special 'Actblue' election in Massachusetts fifth.

• Finally, David Sirota has a good column on prioritizing issue campaigns, and I've done two videos with lobbyist Ben Scott that clearly explain the upcoming public airwaves auction.  

We're trying a number of things on the site, including videoblogging with people in politics engaged in big fights, comedy, and a 'right to respond' feature where groups that are criticized have the official right to respond on the front page.

Come by, and let us know what you think.