meaningless.

I love the new mantra of the Clinton campaign---the caucuses were unfair.

It used to be that caucuses were held in states to make sure the party apparatus could call all the shots---but something funny happened this year---the numbers of new voters, and young people wiped out their ability to maintain control

Thank goodness they still have superdelegates.

The caucus/primary debate is an interesting one. I like the Iowa caucus - it is retail politics at its most extreme, and a test of candidates in front of very human individuals.

The key point is, we have them, and them's the rules. They count.

How many of the fights that count will Hillary vie for in March? Besides Texas and Ohio, there is Wyoming, Mississippi, Vermont and Rhode Island. There aren't that may fights left - she has to fight them to win.

Once again, Hillary can't beat McCain, Obama can. This should be the end of discussion. If Hillary gave a shit about the party or our "shared values" or anything other than her own power, she would concede to Obama so he can take on McCain. I have no doubt that if Obama was clearly not electable (losing all the polls, 50% unfavorable rating, polarizing, unites Republicans, no independent appeal) and Hillary was, he would drop out, especially if he was behind, in order to give the party the best candidate in November. He cares about the party and the people, she cares about nothing but her political career.

That's "heel", Unnamed Former Party Official. Achilles heel.

I agree with your advice to Obama and his campaign, though.

The really ingenous aspect of Clinton's dismissal of caucauses as not representative is that she totally dismisses the importance of unions that really work to get out their members. It would be interesting to see whom the Teachers, machnists,
electricians, etc, have endorsed in these states.
Also, as a person who grew up in a mill town in
northern New England, I can say that the the
working class and even the poor folks in Maine vastly outnumber any uppity college kids from Orono or the white wine swilling liberals in the Kennebunkport to Portland belt.

What the national polls do reflect is:

Senator Obama is closing the name recognition gap, and as he closes that gap the more he overtakes Senator Clinton in the preference column.

The fact that he has reached the 50% preference level in the National Polls, while he still has a much lower name recognition level still, that Senator Clinton, means that he still has a large potential up side, where as Senator Clinton has already maxed out her name recogntition potential.

Within two weeks, Senator Obama should be polling at around 53-55% national poll preference levels.

Let's put so perspective on the ME win - I live in Maine. Our state has 1.32 million people. A whole 44,667 people made it out to the caucus. Out of that, Obama convinced 26,354 people to vote for him. Clinton had 18,313 people vote for her. That is a perfect example of what is wrong with a caucus. It is not a true picture of what the state will do in the general election. The state has a higher percentage of older people than younger & hardly any of them showed up because they couldn't get there & stay for 2-4 hours (some went longer). A primary would have allowed more people to vote & been a better indication of where the state stands. If you go with 40% dems out of the total population & say 65% would vote normally in an election (we actually have a higher turnout percentage normally) - that gives you about 340,000 people - so that's a whopping 8% of the vote showed up & voted for Obama. There is some credence to the argument that primary states are more accurate - from the general election standpoint.

Yes, he did win CT & MO - but by very small margins - smaller than his win in these caucus states. MO - Clinton won more districts overall (wasn't that the Obama arguement in NV). Clinton's wins in primary states were substantial - except for NH.

Almost all those states can be considered blue or in play for the general. I'm sorry, but UT, ID, KS, ND - will NEVER go blue - no matter who runs - even with poor turnout for Repubs. Obama is not winning the southern white male either - that means AL & GA may stay red as well even with the high percentage of african-american voters.

He did win DE, but Clinton won AZ & could take TX - with her hispanic voting block we may have a chance to change a few southwestern states blue.

We are also right next to NH. People do not like to see someone annointed king of the land before they have a chance to vote - it is not over until it is over & the Repubs are not going to just give up.

FL & MI will be critical to a dem win in the fall. They are not at all happy with Obama in FL because he keeps dissing them. Howard Dean should have had this situation resolved before now. If McCain picks the FL Governor as a running mate - that state is red.

These are the types of things the super delegates are supposed to be considering. It is up to the candidates to prove (1) to the voters that they are the right person and (2) to the super delegates that they can be elected & will help create a stronger party.

My in-laws live in IA & they are dems - but not total party loyalists. They will not vote for Obama because they do not feel he has enough experience - there are a lot of elderly people out there (who always vote) who feel the same way.

I am one of those 40 something female voters (and yes, a Clinton supporter). I didn't just decide to vote for her - I watched the debates & have done my reading. I feel she is the better candidate.

Obama has confirmed my decision. His snob treatment of Clinton & others; his wife's comment that she will have to "think about" whether or not she would support Clinton; his comments that he can "guarantee" people like me will just switch over to him; his complaints about super delegates (when he has known how the system works all along); his supporters who have whipped up into a frenzy of "all or nothing" - has demonstrated how immature he really is.

He would rather sink the party & the 2008 race than not win. Clinton & Edwards both said, they would support whomever was nominated 100% & be a united party. We need to keep our eye on the ball - which is the fall election. The more & more this goes along - the more & more we are going to need a combination ticket. Supporters on both sides had better start ramping down the rhetoric & figuring out how to make it work. There is a rift growing & the repubs are enjoying every minute of it.

Hillary sought to win all the caucuses, starting with Iowa, so it is a little late for her to now start claiming that they do not mean anything. If she had won them, she would be bragging about her great victories. Was that Hillary or some impersonator of her that was campaigning in Maine just before the caucuses in that state. What the hell was she doing there if she thinks that they do mean anything. Her and Bill are an apt pair. They will distort, spin, twist and lie about anything that does not go their way. I bet the people who came out to support her and attend her rallies, and listen to her in from Iowa to Maine are feeling now like Hillary has just spit in their faces. She is politically tone deaf. If she said that about my state, I would not vote for her ever again.

To: "From Maine"

Consider: This is an important moment for the Dems. They have a shot at capturing the 15-20% middle of the country that sort of flipped for Reagan in 1980/1984 and went for Perot in 1992 (which is why Bill C won that election).

This election is much more than just POTUS. It's trying to rearrange Congress. In 1972, Nixon got his landslide but didn't support the party and had to face a hostile Congress -- just when he could least afford to.

This is a classic story of bending to change like a willow or snapping like an oak. I'm not saying that is reason enough to vote for Obama - indeed, it's not my reason. But what I am saying is when the Dems get rigid about party purity, they may find themselves like the Whigs in 1856.

This is a potentially realigning election like Reagan's in 1980. (Karl Rove thought that 2000 was a realigning election like McKinley's was in 1900, but that's another story -- and he was since proved wrong by events.) The Dems want to take advantage of it. I believe that the Sr. Dems endorsing Obama are doing so for 2 reasons: (a) to prevent the Clintons from sinking the Dems because they think they are larger than the party itself and (b) because they see Obama is a guy who can bring in this 15-20% of voters.

If the Dem party expands it will change some. But be happy -- it's politics: do you want to win more with a little less of your specific agenda, or never win but have the perfect agenda?

One other comment: older people always tend to think younger people have "not enough experience." Most older people thought differently when they were younger. ;-)

Hey From MAine,

You finish your post by saying supporters should ramp down the rhetoric, yet you called Obama "immature". You question his motives (which you can't possibly know), saying he would rather sink the party than win (something I KNOW to be true about the Clinton's - heh:). Come on, puh-lease. I mean, we are all partisans here, let's face it, but you should at least be held to some logical consistency in your support for HIllary.

Here's a few counter-facts. I have not checked it myself, but I've read here that Obama has actually won more votes than Clinton in the primary states. He's won just as many states as she has, and tomorrow will win two more (should be three, but DC doesn't have statehood yet).

You say he complains about the super delegates. In fact, I haven't heard him complain, but rather he is suggesting they vote for him if he wins the most pledged delegates - a reasonable expectation, with which you clearly disagree. Sayinig caucuses are unfair yet super delegates voting against the intentions of their states is fair smacks of a partisan argument. (And since I hold the opposite opinion, it seems it to me.) Hillary knew the rules about the caucuses, yet she (and you) are complaining about them now. Shouldn't you practice what you preach? The rules have been in place for some time. Clinton got outmaneuvered. For all her claims about her having the greater management experience, he has run a far superior campaign to hers.

I didn't like Michelle's statement, either. It was clearly a bad move. But it pales besides some of Bill Clinton's remarks, which, for obvious reasons, carry much more weight. He went on the attack, introduced race, and then suggested he was "defending" his wife. Sure, if you think the best defense is a good offense.

You studiously ignore Obama's strength in the primaries in some pretty important states - GA, VA, MD, IL, MO, LA. But what you also ignore is that he could win some votes for Senators and Representatives from these red states. IT would sure be nice not to go down the 50+1 road again. Have you forgotten that we lost Congress after the first two years of a Clinton administration?

I will vote for Hillary in the general if she pulls this out. Will you be voting for Obama if he wins?

Pablo

Please Hillary, when are you going to drop out? Don't you understand that we need a beautiful face and a great speech.
Someone with great judgement that decided only to use cocaine
and weed and pass on heroin. That's the new kind of leader we need, not someone who has worked hard all their life, that's so yesterday. Oh, but thanks for all your policy ideas that Obama
will use as his own.

What part of that is not true?

Smered,

It's sarcasm, not a statement. But I guess your implication that Obama is not a hard worker would be a starter about what's not true. And OBama stealing all her policy ideas is another.

Hey Steve - you're not a Hillary supporter, yet you gush that "she's just such an unbelievable person in so many ways!" What's not believable is your assertion of impartiality.

Pablo

There's a new article in the New York Times that is almost writing Hillary's political obituary - AGAIN! The article states that if Obama can grab either Texas or Ohio, he'll deliver a knockout blow. Hmm, this sounds familiar too. It's obvious that Obama and Hillary have divided the Democratic electorate, and that it's a turf war of attrition - Obama's coalation and demographic vs Hillary's.

Hillary did, however, underestimate Obama's overall surge and fund raising potential - and allowed him to spend and organize in these caucus states.

She'll take losses tomorrow night, but I think it's a little early to count her out. What people don't realize is that Hillary's base is energized as well, and articles like the one in the Times (spelling her doom) serve to fire that base up - MSNBC and other media are the greatest friend Hillary Clinton has right now. Overall media coverage really helped to energize her base in New Hampshire, and in California as well. She still leads the overall popular vote in this campaign so far, if you at least count the Florida vote for that purpose. And nobody put a gun to the head of these voters - forcing them to turnout and vote for her.

She'll go into March with a schedule that looks good for her. She can hang on and win Wisconsin - but it will be close. And Obama is the candidate with the uphill battle going into Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania in April.