"...provoke more anger from Hillary's major supporters...." Maybe Obama's 1.4 million supporters have a bit more pull at this point. Those fat cats need to get over themselves and realize it's a new century.

Hear Hear, Dean!

...if Obama wins the pledged del count, as expected...

Ummm, he's already won the pledged del count. It's so "expected" because it's actually already happened.

Durned Democratic party's been hijacked by those bloggers, activists, liberals, small donors, large donors, caucusers, rural states, urban states, new voters, African Americans, young people, and educated people!

Meanwhile, hilarious story in NYT about how Kerry lost black votes in Ohio because there was a gay right measure on the ballot. And no one group of people in America hates another like African-American hate gay people. Man, my former running partner when I lived in Brooklyn used to tell me how he'd kill any gay man that even said hello to him. Oh, and he also believed all that ignorant crazy shit about AIDS and the CIA blahblahblah.

It's starting to look like the party is praying that Obama wins Indiana so it can start to shut this thing down. I have no doubt that if pulls off a win, Obama's white people problem will deemed solved, or at least close to it. Then supers will come out in significant numbers and the pressure on Hillary to get out will become intense. But Obama has to win first. That's the key to all of this.

Do you think Dean knows that Obama is likely a surefire GE loser? I am pretty sure that other key Party Leader, Pelosi, knows and does not care--just like she does not care about ending the war or impeaching Bush. What will the eventual Obama loss mean for Dean's legacy as DNC chair? (Pelosi can still pretend to be the opposition leader.) I admit, I was glad when Dean was elected but he sure seems headed for a Waterloo. As it looks now, he will have rigged the rules (Michigan, Florida) to ensure a Democratic defeat in November.

Hillary's "big win" in PA was almost a week ago, she has received little if any boost in the polls, and there has been no movement of superdels in her direction...At this point, exactly how is she planning to win the nomination?

If Obama sweeps May 6 you're going to see the media pull the sharpest hairpin turn in political history. Suddenly Obama will have been inevitable all along. Hillary will be a selfish diva who can't come to grips with reality.

Mila:

Yes. Of course. YOU are the authority on what African-Americans all think. Yes, YOU know who hates whom the most, don't you? We don't know about the ignorance of your "former running partner", whatever that means, but YOUR OWN ignorance and hate is readily apparent. So, go back to whatever pro Bush blog you came from.

Clinton trolls know all about being a loser.

From my perspective, this is what Dean has been saying for months. Nothing new here.

He was crystal clear yesterday on Russert (who has become insultingly condescending to guests and audience alike), and this statement is the one any competent party chair would make. Essentially, "end this, get unified and don't make my convention a circus."

I think that many people think that either candidate can win in November with the support of the other candidate (another point that Dean made yesterday on Russert, using his own experience as an example of a candidate who had to convince his supporters that rallying behind Kerry was important). It just so happens that the delegates want Obama to be the candidate, and not Hillary.

It is only a storyline because of the complicated history of the Clintons' successes and failures of the 1990s. If it was Obama and, say, Dodd at this point, this would not be even a little interesting and the MSM (a blogs like this one) would be focused on other issues.

I think that Dean has been consistent and strong as a party leader. Michigan has been trying to move up there primary for years (see Terry M's Book) and Florida's legislature (on a bipartisan, nearly unanimous vote) decided to move their elections. By not bending to these political tactics, Dean has been strong, not weak. Painting him in any other light is sour grapes from the losing team.

In other words....."They're baaccckk."

Um, no fogu2.

"As the head of the DNC he wants to change the rules mid-course to give the nomination to the leader rather than the winner."

Um, no, that would be Hillary. Who in neither the leader or the winner.

"He has no legacy to protect and his credibility is paper thin."

Politics isn't all about legacies. Furthermore, I would argue that Dean's legacy would be taking the 50 state strategy to the DNC. A strategy Obama is using, with great success. Also, the reason why I am so excited by Obama's campaign and why I want him for the nomination. He is firing up grassroots support for Democrats across this country and turning out the vote for senate and legislative candidates.

"His decisions of FL and MI are largely to blame for the animosity between the candidates supporters."

I believe all the blame there rests with those two states and their legislative bodies. They made the decision to move up their primaries against the rules. They could still do somehting about it if the got their sh** together. Rules are broken, punishment follows.

If you don't like Dean, fine. However, don't try to pin bogus arguments on him.

Oh, and personally I think 2004 would've turned out much better for the Dems if he would've gotten the nomination. We could've used a candidate that fired people up, not someone who put us to sleep. The loss of grassroots support when Dean fell in the primary was something we could've really used then.

Glad he's with us now, doing what he's doing.

Hillary, clearly, is hoping to be able to argue that by some metric or other she won the popular vote,...>/blockquote>

Probably involving logarithms.

Woof.

yes, like the American people believed that crazy ignorant shit that saddam had WMD's, that he was responsible for 9/11, or that the levees would not be breached, or that we don't torture...

and, of course, AA's are apparently more homophobic than any other group and, of course, AA's make the homophobic laws of this nation

be sure to tell that to the one black senator

[I]t doesn't appear likely that party elders will stand idly by while [Clinton argues that by some metric or other she won the popular vote, in order to obscure perceptions of who won, hence turning the contest into a battle for super-del support].

Does not appear likely. Indeed not. Nor should it. No Democrat should want that to be allowed to happen - not even the partisans of Sen Clinton. To take this all the way to the convention is to court defeat in November. Thankfully the Party is making clear that such a counterproductive scenario will not be allowed to play out.

Ever read The Family Circus? Where Billy's grandpa up in heaven is always looking down on Little Billy. I wonder if Edwards' dumbass kid is friends with Billy's grandpa. That would be nice, wouldn't it? Maybe Billy's grandpa has an opinion about what to do.

Is Dean insane? The queen of the Clintoids will ride this pony into hell and for the thirty-six or so years left of her blighting the face of our planet with her continued existence. We will be hearing about HRC's self-absorbed attempt to destroy the Party for own benefit for the next coupla decades.

JosephCast,

The Clintons

HATE

I am sure Hillary and Barrack have a plan to end this thing soon. They are two smart people, both capable and both able to lead the party and the country. They will know when the time has come to end this. They know what the stakes are in November. It was nice seeing his mug on TV yesterday. But it is not up to him who, when or where somebody drops out of this race. So Dean should shut the hell up and just do his job, insure we have a Senate super-majority next year.

The assholes demanding one or the other candidate are just insecure. The assholes that will not vote for the other candidate this fall are insuring more death in Iraq, ,more preemeptive wars, higher medical bills, more foreclosures, reduced education opportuntities for our kids, higher unemployment, further degradation of food safety and environmental regulations, unregulated gas, oil and energy corporations, higher incarceration rates, etc. Democrats like rough and tmble politics. Just because Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Rush Limbaugh and all the others warniong the party will be split are just as wrong as they can be. The Dem Party is not royalty, for once we will not have a coronation, we will have a hard fought nomination and a nominee that will deserve all of our unwavering support. Lets not be our own worse enemy.

for Dean is well documented AND the rumor is no love is lost going the other direction either. Dean cares for the good of the party and neither of the Clintons are similarly burdened.

Word.

If Barack Obama loses in November, it will be because of the Rove-like tactics of Hillary Clinton... forcing a racial divide and creating a contentious divide between Working Class White Democrats and African American Democrats.

That is the way I see it, and I think Hillary Clinton could pay for it for years to come.

oh, Obama will be the nominee,and he'll win probably, and then you can all realize your dream of a black President who seems smart and all and who speaks reasonably well. And then when he can't handle the job and America stumbles from one disaster to another, you'll realize that entrusting your future to a guy who's never, ever had to compete or excel at anything really wasn'tt your best choice alternative : )

who seems smart and all and who speaks reasonably well

I have to assume that you hold multiple graduate degrees from Oxford and the Sorbonne and have won at least one Nobel Prize to have such a lukewarm view of his oratorical and intellectual abilities.

Or did you really mean that "he seems smart... for one of THEM"?

The rest of this is an absurd canard. Hillary has won two elections in her political career. Neither time did she run against a serious candidate (first time she started up against Giuliani, who, owing to cancer and adultery, had to drop out in favor of the little known Rick Lazio, second time she ran virtually unopposed). Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review (not political, but CERTAINLY an achievement par excellence), three times to the Illinois Senate (if you don't think Illinois politics aren't rough, you don't know much about Illinois politics) and then the US Senate.

He also did not benefit from any of those elections from a spouse that was both a former Governor, former Chair of the DLC and oh, a former US President.

well, actually W is America's first affirmative action baby President, another amiable but not particularly talented guy who gets a free ride, although in W's case because of his family, in Obama's because he's a realtively well-spoken black guy, which most people equate with genius and ability. Oh, he won't be as bad as W, but he'll be nearly as bad. But 2008 is a year when you should know you need a competent leader, whereas in 2000 you fools thought competence didn't matter at all, it was all about which guy you'd rather have a beer with, or which candidate read the Bible more.

Dumbass Americans

Oops, I predicted that Hillary would drop out by today. I was wrong. Time to go to Indiana and help out, Obama supporters.

you're comments are totally disgusting, mila. i know i'm not going to change your mind. so i will hold my tongue from here on out.

i'd recommend getting out and exploring the world more. whatever bubble you're in needs to be burst.

Mila: Based on your selection criteria, it sounds like BUSH is your ideal candidate. Too bad you can't vote for him a third time. Oh wait, you can! Bush changed his name to John McSame. Lucky you!

Don't forget that Dean just yesterday called the race a tie. And don't forget that by some measures Hillary is acknowledged as the leader of the popular vote. ABC News, for instance, uses a formula that counts Michigan and Florida, and they put Hillary ahead of Obama. So it is no longer as clear as it seemed only recently. And don't forget that Obama hasn't won a major contest since February.

Have you EVER lived in America? Are you actually an Al Qaeda troll (that would be new!).

So you have NOT been in the U.S. for at least most the last 15 years? You sound more like you not been here in the last 150 years. You really didn't have to admit that you've been out-of-touch for at least that long. It was already obvious.

eh, I am three handshakes away from Osama, I have hung out with some pretty dodgy characters, likewise I am two handshakes from Mladic and Karadjic. A worldly character indeed.

Its all right Clinton trolls. Spinning so fast must be very tiring. Death is your friend once you are have become so filled with venom. Just close your eyes and breath slowly. Don't struggle. The end will come soon to Hillary's doomed campaign. It will soon be committed to the ages. May it rest in peace. If you're really lucky Rev. Wright will give the eulogy.

Hush little babies don't you cry....

This is why Dems lose election. They want party elders to decide things -- not the people. So they try to stack the deck with superdelegates and other such nonsense.

If there had been no superdelegates, this argument would not be occurring. It's their own fault.

You forgot the folks living outside of the U.S.A.
Posted by ADLEED

LOL

I think many posters (or maybe it's me) fail to understand how the convention operates. Pledged delegates are required to vote for their candidate on the first ballot; after that, they may vote for whomever they please.
And I believe that is what Sen. Clinton is aiming for before conceding defeat (you can't come back from a concession speech) - to see if she is able to sway any of the regular delegates after the first ballot has been taken. The supers will follow if that occurs. The odds are not favorable but, considering that the convention is over three months away and a lot can take place between now and August, not insuperable.
And I also firmly believe, if she is unable to attract any more support after the first few ballots, that that is the time for the supers to step in. She will have had her chance to try and convince delegates, shown herself unable to do so, and neither she nor her supporters (I'm one in case you didn't realize) will have nothing to complain about.
I fully take Sen. Clinton at her word about campaigning for Sen. Obama if he is the candidate - she has too much to lose if she doesn't; any influence she now has or hopes to have in the Democratic Party will be gone if she doesn't actively and wholeheartedly campaign for Sen. Obama.
Anyway, my just my view and trust you find it of interest.