What Wolfson said is essentially true re still a tie, although with that said, all the momentum is with Obama and he is impressing with his electablity gains in the polls and in cutting into Hillary's demographics.

Hillary needs to slow the express with a reasonable showing in Wisconsin (notoriously independent and "purple" - close for Bush in 2000, close for Kerry in 2004).

Otherwise, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania loom ominously large for her with Obama having lots of money to spend to get it close or even prevail in one or the other of them.

IMO, Michigan and Florida seating is a non-issue unless Hillary has a slight lead in pledged delegates going into the convention.

Good contest from two excellent liberal, progressive Democrats. Will be proud to support whoever wins.

Rightwing, warmonger, Bush suck-titty McCain will look like Bob Dole in the third person himself when this is all over in November.

Read: The Clintons don't care about the party, or how much "grinding" all the way to the convention will hurt the party. Even though she basically can't win the popular vote now, she will continue to try to tear the party apart and tear Obama down, because all she cares about it power. We can expect more lies and more Crazy Bill and more excuses and whining and all the stops, Hillary won't go down without a bloody fight. She has no sense of decency and no care for the greater good.

Howard Dean today:

"There's a lot being said about the primary process right now. I wanted to reach out to you and let you know how things look from where I stand.

First, I think we'll have a nominee before the convention. It's still early, and there are plenty of voters who still haven't weighed in.

I also think that we're fortunate to have two fantastic candidates that people are excited about -- we've consistently had record turnout across the country, and whoever wins will have the support of a healthy Party that's ready to fight. Hillary and Barack are meeting voters in places that don't typically get to see our candidates so closely, and that's good for both of them come November.

They're both campaigning hard, and it's great to see such excitement for two great candidates -- I'm excited about them, too."

And I'm going to have to disagree, Hillary is NOT a progressive. Her foreign policy is hawkish, she is super cozy with lobbyists and corporate interests, and she doesn't care about the party, the voters, or anything else other than her and Bill's power. And she certainly isn't a leader, she will sell out anyone to get ahead. I'm sorry, she is better than a Republican, but that's as far as I go, there is a candidate in this race who is obviously superior in ethics, in substance, in abilities, and in electability, and that is Barack Obama.

wwjb:

Well, we essentially disagree, so let's see what the ADA, who rates candidates on progressive issues has to say re their respective lifetime Senate voting records:

Hillary Clinton (7 plus years) = 95% plus rating

Barack Obama (1 plus year) = 95% plus rating

And for comparison:

John Edwards (6 years) = 78% rating

You know, you can find votes to disagree with re any politician no matter how progressive (even Russ Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft etc.)

This is a change in tone that I'm sure to be reminded of this summer, when right wing talk radio starts singing the glories of John McCain.

Well, whatever. Good points.

good analysis colonpowowow. Thanks.

Hell yes HRC should throw in the towel today.
She shoulda thrown it in before getting beat in the Potomic primaries. She got no shame?
I mean why do we need these nomination things in the first place when we can save a lot of money and trouble just polling the GenY wake and bake crowd to settle everything?
Maybe we should just screw the GE too, since we know McCain is toast, what ya think?

Iam going to reserve my calls for her stepping down until March 5th. If she doesn't get 60+ percent in Ohio and Texas then she lost its over time to rally behind the winner and crush McCain.

Here's a snip from an AP article that gives some insight about how the superdelegates may swing in light of the Obama surge, but PLEASE go read the whole article.

"For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon.

Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton's campaign, say many party leaders _ the so-called superdelegates _ won't hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground."

http://tinyurl.com/3e3dwq

>>>Read: The Clintons don't care about the party, or how much "grinding" all the way to the convention will hurt the party. Even though she basically can't win the popular vote now, she will continue ....

I don't know - I really don't. At some point (should have happened before now, imo), I believe Hillary is going to 'divorce' herself from Billary and the legacy of the 90s and all that and realize that, however it came about, she has her own, independent and apparently well-respected career in the Senate. And she's got strengths that could truly turn her into a stateswoman for years into the future. That's something solid and it would be all *hers* - if she can realize that it is as worthy and worthwhile as the (apparently) long-held goal/expectation of being president.

I suppose it would be foolish and turning her back on her supporters, to quit this race now, BUT if things don't go well for her in Ohio and Texas (or, perhaps, if it becomes clear that they are going to go very badly - think Guliani realizing he would probably lose 'his' NY), I think there is at least a chance she may do something truly un-Clintonian and think about the party and her own dignity ... and her own CAREER. Hers, not Bill's, not Bill's successor.

I say this as someone who has become so offended with the way she has run this race (both the Rovian tactics and the more recent ineptness of it as well) that I won't vote for her in the general. That hasn't changed. But you know the old saying about doors closing and windows opening (or however it goes). If this winds up being a *defeat* for her, as part of Billary and as heir-apparent of the Clinton years, it might just possibly be the beginning of a new and very respectable opportunity for her, as Hillary.

It's just a thought, perhaps Pollyannaish, but she is a smart woman and at some point the thought will at least occur to her. I hope she goes with it when it does occur. Probably over a year ago, before anyone had formally announced, on one of those "Tell me something I don't know" segments on Chris Matthews' Sunday show, I recall Joe Klein saying that there was a possibility HRC would forego the presidential race and just concentrate on becoming a real force in the Senate. It felt good - right - when I heard that and the thought still attracts.

For all my recent (and continuing) disgust of her as a presidential candidate and prospective president, I still want to like her, I still do admire her many strengths, and would like very much to see her succeed ON HER OWN. There's still a way for that to happen IF she doesn't "grind" it all the way to the convention and risk fracturing the party and possibly its chances in Nov. Even if she wins, she would always be the 2nd President Clinton, but she is and can be with increasing honor the *1st* Senator Clinton.

Hillary is one of the most unlikable characters in history and Obama represents the future. Notwithstanding the fact that even if she wins TX, OH and PA, she won't win big and therefore not claim a big majority of the delegates, do you really think the superdelegates want to cast their legacy fixing the election for her against him...particularly given Obama's big margins, the number of states he's won and the excitement he's brought?

Her only remote hope is to take him down a notch somehow in the next couple of weeks, create some uncertainty, and then force him to accept VP (which he won't). I think it's over...particularly if McCain starts running against him like he did last night.

No one's more pro-Obama than me (at least, not without being less sane than me), and no one is more disdainful of Hillary's arrogant and clueless campaign strategy, her willingness to subordinate principle to her ambition, and her and her followers sincere belief that what we really need, at this moment in our history, now is eight years of incremental gains through conflict-ridden technocracy.

But suggesting that Hillary should quit now, before Texas and Ohio, is just crazy-talk. I'd say the same thing if their positions were reversed and I'm saying it now. Sure, I wish she would, but in all honesty, that's because my candidate is ahead, the outcome in those states (and what happens thereafter) is uncertain and the suspense is frakking killing me.

And, speaking of fair's fair, when Obama was behind, his campaign, and all of us, were referring to it as "essentially tied." Nothing wrong with Wolfson using the same formulation.

Now, on the other hand, suggesting that its okay for Superdelegates to overturn the collective outcome of the primaries because, in hindsight, I've decided that caucuses are kind of fishy and undemocratic and, anyway, all these people in rogue primary states I ran in unopposed because I wasn't supposed to be running there at all should count for something too, that's something else entirely. Its nothing short of a prescription for civil war within the party, followed by a crushing defeat in the general when people who feel like they've been Bush v. Gored by their own party stay home and apply for immigration to Australia or Canada.

I posted this on another thread. Some counts have Hillary still ahead.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/81143/8416

I agree.

There is one silver lining to yesterday's results for Senator Clinton. While she lost both Maryland and Virginia, she won the Appalachian portions of both states. That bodes well for her prospects in southeastern Ohio and southwestern and central Pennsylvania.