In other words : delusional egomaniac

That's actually pretty unconvincing, it really sounds, to me, like she's mentally preparing to leave. She's just rounding the denial portion of the grieving process. Decent showing by Obama in PA or a win in IN should end this.

IOW, expect the kneecapping to continue and the drawing up of battle plans for a Clinton candidacy in 2012.

While this may be true and HRC will not give in no matter what happens in the remaining contests, her candidacy will deteriorate into irrelavancy.

She will run out of money. She will run out of supporters- mainly big name ones.

She will continue to run on fumes while the party, the people, and of course, the media comes together around Obama.

In short, she would look like not much more than Mike Huckabee did until McCain finally hit his magic number.

Reading between the lines, it seems her biggest issue is trust.

She doesn't trust Obama enough to be able to win.
She doesn't trust the Democratic party enough to help him win.
She doesn't trust anyone else enough to do the job.
She didn't trust anyone else enough to fix medical care 15 years ago.
She doesn't trust anyone enough to delegate tasks to.

It shouldn't be surprising that someone married to Bill Clinton has trust issues.

She knows all that - that she is damaging her own image, Bill's and that she's tearing the party up. But she won't back down.

The very fact that the Clintons know all this and still refuse to do the right thing really tells me how much I don't want her to win. I do not want these people back in charge. They have the same goddamn attitude that Bush has - that arrogant "fuck everyone else, I'm the One," attitude that has driven this country into the ground.

I have had it with this crap.

It might not end by her quitting. But there are other ways in which the race can effectively end soon. As more and more people become convinced that Obama is almost certainly the party's nominee, increasing numbers of current Clinton leaners and supporters will defect to Obama, just as we saw in the waning days of the McCain-Huckabee race. If polls start to show Obama right on Clinton's heels in Pennsylvania, where she previously held a massive lead, the flow of defections might become a flood. More party leaders and superdelegates will come out publicly for Obama, and a major bandwagon effect will set in in Pennsylvania. And as increasing numbers of Democrats come to perceive Clinton as the certain loser, her donations and financial support will dry up and her cash-strapped campaign will begin to recede from the national limelight.

So, she may formally stay in the race until August, but she will be doing so as a voice in the wilderness. She will be increasingly viewed as just a nuissance who can't let go, which will bring even more of her one-time supporters into the rally to Obama's camp.

She is once again insulting Obama's supporters. That's really not such a good idea.

idiotic back in the blog.

Okay all you Obama whiners, let the people vote, let their votes count and lets finish this fight.

I know you hate a fighter but saddle up and deal with it.

I think the Tale of Tuzla did her in. I don't know if this article was written before or after.

If her aides can stand by and let her tell such an implausible lie, it's kind of like the emperor's new clothes. The first lady of the US has to run through sniper fire, and somehow it never was on the news?

I think it shows how insular her campaign has become. She seems more and more like GWB all the time.

Here's something I'd seriously like to see a full out moratorium on - going after Chelsea to try to get to her mother.

That is really dirty, I don't think it's the right thing to do at all and makes us look very uncomfortably like Lucianne and Jonah Goldberg.

Sorry to go off-topic, but I have noticed a number of comments and posts out there about Chelsea since she answered that question. I don't like that kind of politics - it's not necessary because it's completely irrelevant. There isn't a daughter on earth who wouldn't defend her parents, unless they are estranged, and Chelsea is very close to her parents, by all indications. Please lay off the candidates' kids. Even if they are campaigning. The question Chelsea was asked was out of line in my view and she was under no obligation to answer it other than she did.

I really don't like seeing us treat each other like both sides used to treat Repugs. *sigh*

The irony is astounding. Clinton's last best hope is that Obama has a skeleton or two left in his closet. Really? What about the mass grave in her closet?

A year ago David Geffen said the following:

“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

Given how amazingly accurate the rest of Mr. Geffen's comments were, I'm fairly confident he was right on the money with this one, too.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Actually . . . Clinton won't quit the race until she accepts her rightful place as Vice President to President McCain for the next four years.

McCain-Clinton '08

I'm liking the scenario whereby this all wraps up around May 6 or shortly thereafter -- right after North Carolina and Indiana have cancelled out whatever modest gains Clinton may have eked out in Pennsylvania. At that point, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine the remaining uncommitted heavyweights -- mostly notably Gore and Edwards -- throwing their weight behind the inevitable nominee in the interests of party unity, and the rest of the superdels seizing the opportunity to follow.

Failing that, I guess the next best hope is that, as oxfdblue has suggested, Hillary just comes to seem increasingly irrelevant. But that will still leave her diehard supporters pretty angry in August.

she doesn't trust the voters' decisions thus far either.

Perhaps off topic, but anyone else notice that the EC calendar column continually lists the actual three presidential candidates' schedules PLUS Bill Clinton's schedule......
without also listing Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain's schedules?

"Clinton believes Obama's support is largely a mirage -- a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience."

Isn't the above simply the question that always occurs between generations when power is being passed to the younger folks? I was young, but I recall the grandparents shaking their heads over the youth of JFK while my parents' generation were passionately wanting a younger leader.

"She can't stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children's enthusiasm for his candidacy..."

Doesn't this statement prove my point about the passing of the torch to a younger generation?

I fully expect Obama to secure the nomination. And the general will mean that efforts must intensify by door-to-door canvassing, voter registration, phone banking, and e-mails to contact every possible voter. If our young folks have this dedication, then Obama will win. And I would prefer a decisive win and not the squeaker that JFK managed to pull off.

My two cents....

Oh please! Obama is the "I'm the One" candidate. Remember when he didn't have a problem going around the country with Oprah loudly pronouncing "this one is THE one!"

Well, I might agree with you if Obama was running against the odds right now. But in fact, Sen. Clinton is running against the odds, which mean (if I have to explain this) that more people other than Obama himself do in fact think he's the One. The Clintons, on the other hand, are convinced she's the One in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

There's a big difference there. Sorry - but when you are winning, you are a bit more entitled to think you may well be the One. Whereas, holding onto that idea when you are losing becomes detached from reality to the point where it is delusional.

But not only does Clinton intend to stay in, she and her advisers are crafting a strategy that they think can swing the nomination her way. It essentially comes down to convincing superdelegates that they can't afford to take a chance on Obama, that she is the only candidate who can win the White House against McCain.

Has anyone answered satisfactorily what case Clinton can make for her beating McCain? If Obama is so unelectable, what makes her think that she can do any better with her negative numbers. The only ones lower than her on that scale are Bush and Cheney. The Repugs are salivating at the thought of running against Clinton -- thanks to Limbaugh, there are more Repubs voting for her than for Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson combined! Can one of you local Clinton supporters explain this for me? How does Hillary beat McCain, particularly if she doesn't make nice with African Americans, independents and the latte swillers?

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Your timing is bad on this one. You know you're lying, of course, but it's unfortunate that an article proving it was posted just minutes after you wrote this. Check the TPM front page.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx

"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

New Gallup tracking numbers:

Obama: 50%
Clinton: 42%

Clinton believes Obama's support is largely a mirage -- a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience. She can't stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children's enthusiasm for his candidacy.

So can we agree that the bolded portion indicates just how detached from reality she truly is right now? He has over 1MM donors; he's won 30 of the 44/45 contests and she thinks his support his is largely a mirage. Amazing....

Everyone on both sides, before we all get ourselves bent out of shape over this article, consider the source. Mark Halperin. The one guy you go to when you want a reporter who will regurgitate exactly what you tell him and portray it as the result of his own brilliant shoe leather reporting and penetrating insight into the psyche of a candidate.

HRC Campaign = Primary Cholers

New Gallup tracking numbers:

Obama: 50%
Clinton: 42%

O I do so hope the Repugs make the same mistake the Clintons made in going after Rev Wright.

I really do - cause I think this is the result. I think whoever upthread said the Clintons were counting on the general idiocy and racism of the voters may well have been right. And it backfired, because maybe we aren't as bad as they keep trying to tell us we are.

That's one reason John Adams is my least favorite founding father - he thought people were inherently evil. I don't, but our public discourse and our politicians too often seem determined to convince us otherwise. I think that idea is illogical in a democracy - because the whole idea is that we are capable of governing ourselves. And as someone pointed out yesterday, Obama talks to us like we are adults, like we are capable of governing ourselves. You know how the Repugs have talked to us - like we mostly don't exist and are all about 3 years old and the permanent servant class. And one aspect of that is pandering to what is worst in us. The Clintons decided to take that road, as well and it has backfired, it seems.

Ha! I likes it.

Wouldn't it be nice if America turned out to not be quite as bad as so many expect it to be?

Leave it to Clinton to dismiss the judgement of the majority of the voters so far, and the insight of so many of her own party veteran leaders as somehow being fooled by some sort of "mirage".

Does she really think we are all really that stupid?

Winning at all costs has driven her past the point of delusional. Its over. Go home.

Let the remaining states have their say. Why deprive them of that. I have no problem with Senator Clinton staying in the contest through the remaining primaries. The fact that a lot of of new people are registering as Democrats in Pennsylvania shows that the contest is actually providing a long term dividend which makes it worthwhile. Keep the voters engaged. Let Senator Obama introduce himself to the voters in the remaining states.

Take a deep breath everyone. We will come together by convention time, and join forces in the fall.

I am an Obama supporter.

Peggy taking Hillary a peg or two or several pegs down

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists

I have no problem with Senator Clinton staying in the contest through the remaining primaries.

I have no problem with Senator Clinton staying in the contest through the remaining primaries.

I do have a problem with Senator Clinton endorsing McCain over Obama and exaggerating her own "experience" record, trying to re-ignite the Wright issue rather than having even the decency that McCain had in saying that it was obvious that Obama didn't share those views, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But here's the rub. The former makes no sense for the Hillary campaign without the latter. If she ran a clean campaign, she'd get to the convention with fewer pledged delegates, and the super-dels would decline to overrule the caucus and primary voters, and she'd lose.

Hillary running for 2012 by knee-capping Obama now is not delusional...it's deranged. Why would any party touch her even with a 20-ft pole after this disastrous run ? Really, really.

And I really don't understand why Obama supporters keep pushing this 2012 meme. Seriously.

I don't know how far the Clintons will go to make Obama "unelectable". And that's a little scary. We know from 2000 that there were people who confessed to changing the outcome of a state's election by changing the data on electronic voting machines.

I just don't know. An addiction to power is dangerous. When you think you're entitled to something, when you've pre-brokered promises to the elite, not only in the U.S., but places like Saudi Arabia, when you've actually convinced yourself that you and you alone are what's best for this nation, that's a dangerous state of mind.

Suddenly a known quantity becomes an unknown quantity.

Moving forward, I'm optimistic about Obama capturing the nomination.

I just hope someone reels in the Clintons.

I've never voted for a Republican before, but this year I get and subscribe to the old saw, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." The Dem party is being taken over by a bunch of know nothing cultists trying to "find themselves" and their messiah

Too funny.

No, actually what I see happening is nothing short of miraculous. The progressive wing of the Democratic party - those of us who don't like losing all the time and have some better and certainly newer ideas about things, are taken over from the old guard.

And the old guard is having conniption fits in public over it.

What's funny about the "electability" argument is that before this year, most democrats I know generally supported Hillary but always feared she was unelectable due to the fact (born out in poll after poll) that a huge bedrock of people can't stand her. One of the first things that drew me to Obama is that he's likable and Rev. Wright hasn't changed that. Obama has weathered every storm Hillary has conjured and he's done it without raising any of the serious baggage Hillary will carry around in the general election. I know things get tense in the day-to-day of the primary campaign, but if you pull back for a minute, the question of who is more electable is a total no-brainer. Obama might lose, but there is nothing about him that signals he will lose. You just can't honestly say the same thing about Hillary.

And the GOP will be armed with videos of Clinton's Bosnia lies and play them again and again and her other exaggerations, talk about the Clinton pardons, look into her fundraising scandals, Norman Hsu, Bill's overseas dealings--not to mention the fact that Hillary was #2 on that (silly) list. And that's just the nice stuff.

No one minds a tough contest, but an underhanded one is something different.

Wlii there be time for the bitterness to heal? Will Hillary ask her people to support Obama? It is the feeling seemingly that all the mischief isn't going away, that she will continue to give Mc cain fodder against Obama.The public has been way ahead of Washington and the MSM for a long time.

This election is so important, can we afford to wait? Past June? there will be a lot of healing when she is finally done, any thoughts on this?

Since when do we Democrats select our Candidate based on the fear of what a Cluster of Incompetent, Neo-Con, Chicken Hawk, War-Mongering Lunatics might say!

Since when do we Democrats select our Candidate based on the fear of what a Cluster of Incompetent, Neo-Con, Chicken Hawk, War-Mongering Lunatics might say!

Word up.

Electability is a bullshit idea and a bullshit way to run a campaign.

It's exactly like saying: I had this lot appraised and it is valued at $160,000. No, it's not - it's worth exactly what a willing buyer will pay.

If vote and caucus numbers during the primary don't have a bearing on "electability" then I fail to see how anyone can build a case either way.

Casey's endorsement of Obama is a clear indications that many believe Clinton is finished. Casey, from Pennsylvania, had been neutral but decided to announce support of Obama. Although non supporters, Dodd and Leahy statements adds to the flames; Noonan in the WSJ showcase Clinton's flaws very well.And, Daley's remarks adds to the flames; the question is how far down this road of self destruction?

The television ads in N.C. and IN. suggest a broaden front by Obama that exploits Clinton cash position and fund raising. For Clinton Wright shall not overcome Bosnia; perhaps, she simply has been inevitable too long.

What seems so odd about this, assuming that this is Hillary's true conviction, is if she would make such a better leader, then why didn't she have the foresight to see Obama coming and to beat him soundly in the primaries. And why shouldn't Americans be excited by Obama simply because of his expert handling of this campaign.

Neither individual has governed before. We have never had a Barack Obama administration or a Hillary Clinton administration before. So this is the only chance we have to see these politicians run something. And Barack has done a pretty darn good job, and Hillary simply hads not and quite honestly has placed a huge question mark in my mind as to her leadership skills. Barack has shown nothing but his great leadership through everything he has done on this campaign. Whatever Hillary pictures in her mind, it is completely divorced from reality.

While this may be excellent news to the ears of Hillary's increasingly vehement army, it's sure to backfire for the same reason the recent Veruca-Salt style threats to Pelosi and Dean did: Hillary's just told the supers that she has every intention of keeping the destruction going through the convention, where she and Bill are planning on winning a knife fight.

If you were a super concerned with the party's (and your own) chances come November, you may have been telling yourself up to now that it will work itself out by the end of Indiana and N.Carolina, and that there will be time to kiss and make up by the convention. Hillary just told you that ain't gonna happen, and that she has no intention of going quietly. How do you take that? Many will take it just like Leahy and Bob Casey did. Hopefully very many. And some might even grow some stones and say it out loud.

In an interview on Fox, Halperin actually went a lot further than he did in the magazine.

He said the reason she thought Obama couldn't win was "sensitive" and the sort of thing that couldn't be said in polite company.

He implied very strongly that she meant that he couldn't win because he was black.

The interview occurred on Fox this afternoon my time, which was around 1:30 East Coast time.

"...According to those close to her, she is hoping that as spring becomes summer, the potential for finding another skeleton or two in Obama's closet will prove him ultimately unelectable in the fall..."

That road runs two ways. If Bill is back in the White House, I will always be waiting for the....third?...shoe to drop, or maybe even the fourth or fifth.

Of course, Hillary should keep in mind Bill's own experience with scandals not hurting him in his run for the presidency back in 92, such as when Gennifer Flowers revealed that she and Bill had had a fling. Didn't prevent Bill from beating a sitting president, did it? What are the chances that Obama would have any kind of scandal worse than that? Sometimes there is an advantage to being younger and to not having that many years of insider status under one's belt--less time to have worked up as many scandals. Ole Johnny Boy has plenty, rest assured. And Hillary is more vulnerable on that front, if only because her husband is Bill Clinton.

See the trailer!!!!
Hillary in Ireland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCmKkLdCuA&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/28/134518/720/978/486159

I'm also on record here saying that Obama can't win in November, but Clinton can. I want her to continue on because she's now our only hope for victory. Obama's popularity will fade when the republicans bring out their guns, gays, death penalty, most liberal member of Congress, surrender to the terrorists mantra. The fleetingness of Obama's support is evidenced by the number of childish posts on this and other similar sites. The ratio has got to be 10 or 20 to 1 or more. Obama caught a zeitgeist that will fade as quickly as Dukakis's double digit lead in 88.

As a long time progressive, I like Obama (though his supporters irritate me), but the only thing I care about is removing the Facists from power. I'll grant that McCain is merely a reactionary and not a Facist, but he'll enable and perpetuate the Rovian dream. Our great republic teetered on the edge for several years, and the only way to ensure its viability is to elect a democrat and shine a light into the dark evil recesses of the Cheney-Roveco machinations. Only then will the public at large realize just how dangerous these men were.

For Clinton, herself, perseverance is probably ego-driven, and her recent mistakes irritate us immensely, but for those of us who support her, it's about winning period.

"the issue isn't when Hillary quits. The issue is when the country realizes that she is out of options. When her donations begin to dry up and when her staff realizes that they don't want to shut themselves out of government for the foreseeable future."

Well said.

I think you are being short-sighted and terribly self-important.

Very well said, indeed, and I thank you for that.

I'm sick of the threats.

I think Obama is the best thing that has happened to this country in 20 years, at least, but if Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her - there are people dying on the cusp of this decision and I'm not going to fool around with anymore American and Iraqi lives.

But once this is over, if the party does nominate Hillary, after I've voted for her, I will examine carefully whether my commitment to the Democrats is still good. If progressives jump the party after the election because we got fucked again, I may be through with the Democrats.

But I will vote this November, for whoever the Democratic candidate is. I mean, roadkill would be a better choice than McCain.