If she's so "electable", then how come she...ummm...lost the elections?

But... PowerPoint worked for Al Gore! :)

"Am feeling mesmerized by these bullets. Wow. It seems so much more compelling this time. Ooh look! A picture! ..."

Hillary is absolutely right.
Obama is being pushed out before he has had a
chance to build Washington cred.
This makes his seedy CHI friendships glaring.

If he were a good veep for 8 years, THEN
he would have public trust.

Hillary has been stunning in debates. He cannot
hold a candle to her.

He should learn the ropes from the pros.
Then he will be ready, and electable.

The Republicans want him out now, which is why
they are pitching in with cash.

I would comment on this, but you know what, that's what she wants: to stir up some more shit.

Well, to that, I say: *yawn*. Has Obama latched onto McCain's land deal.

I think the argument could be made that she won in heavily Republican districts because Republicans, who want to face her in the fall against McCain, crossed over to vote for her. The "Rush Limbaugh" factor, if you will.

This argument only opens up the question of why she won the Republican districts, the "Bush" districts and Obama won where Democrats will win in the fall.

Not to smart of her to open that conversation, if you ask me. Hardcore Repubican districts know that a Clinton on the ticket will raise cash and turnout for their side.

How did her campaign not see that?

I am trying to plan for my Summer expenses. Has Hillary suffered a Senior Moment, and forget to work on the Gas Tax Holiday that she promised me. Without that extra thirty cents a day, I will be forced to park my car at the front of my driveway, instead of driving the extra distance to my garage.

This is simply bound to revolve around a definition of 'tough' districts that will melt under scrutiny. Will those with expertise plz scrutinize away?

One obvious fallacy is that, her wins in "tough districts" only proves that she was more preferred to Obama. It leaves untested the thesis that Obama may still win these districts or that Obama may open up other districts that she cannot. Since this is essentially a coat-tails argument, the counter argument hasn't been discussed: How many other districts do we lose by having Hillary on the ticket.

These districts are heavily rural. Half of them are more than 40% rural.

Can someone tell me how a distric's 'ruralness' is measured? Number of bitter gun owners? Number of combines in the field and silos on the horizon?

Otherwise, the whole thing looks like another case of throwing anything out there and seeing what sticks. I'd be shocked if this 'sticks.'

John McCain.

Clinton wins all the tough districts, except for the toughest of all: America.

It's so embarrassing to see Hillary Clinton stoop this low. She should save face now and withdraw before my pity for her turns into completely laughter at her ridiculous non-sense tatics.

Hillary is turning into that annoying classmate that you had in 2nd grade that would do anything to get your attention and be your friend.

This is an exceptionally frustrating race because it is nearly tied in all respects except the one -- pledged delegate count--that is connected in the rules to nomination.

* They have (numerically speaking) almost identical electoral college calculi--They would both win or lose the EC by very similar margins.

* They have nearly identical superdelegate counts.

* The both have trouble winning over one block of the democratic coalition--Hillary with liberal activists, black voters, and younger voters, and Obama, mostly, with older voters.

What's so frustrating is the the alienation problems on both sides are due to the way Hillary ran her campaign. She should finish the race, and let everyone vote (and register more voters), but, if she continues to listen to her husbands advice and go negative on Obama through the end of June, history will judge her very,very poorly for electing John McCain to serve out GW Bush's third term.

About ten of these twenty have already declared some form of commitment.

Six to Clinton:
Ellsworth
Schuler
Hall
Gillibrandard
Arcuri
Carney

Four to Obama:
Hill
Walz
Shea-Porter
Kagen

That leaves ten named and uncommitted "targets":
Mitchell
Giffords
McNerny
Mahoney
Donnelly
Boyda
Space
Altimire
Lapson
Rodriguez

Breaking:

Mel Brook developing a New Musical for Broadway.

Title: SPRINGTIME FOR HILLARY AND ARYANY.

The Supers need to come out and end this thing. I would like to blame Hillary, but if the Supers won't declare, who can blame her for trying to steal this election?

The fact is, this election would be over if the Supers declare. End of story. They need to stop being worried about political fallout and declare.

This is a step in the right direction. They apparently decided to leave out the analysis of "white" districts.

So much for her going out gracefully.
We've seen the real Hillary the past few months, and it's not a pretty sight.
She's divisive, churlish and disingenuous.
Looks like we do need a house to fall on her to end this.

For the record, no more Clinton supporters are allowed to argue that she is more electable until they explain to me why she is getting her ass handed to her.

Also, those "Republican" districts didnt vote for Bush in 2004 because they're loaded with Democrats. They voted for Bush because there are a shit ton a disaffected Republicans living in those districts, who elected Democrats in 2006 to voice their displeasure.

Want to bet those Republican's will be a lot less disaffected when you get to vote against Clinton?

Oh for the love of God - will you Shrillary supporters put a cork in it with the "How can't even win California and won't win the big states in November" bullshit!!!

There are TWO Democratic candidates right now. In November, there will be ONE candidate. So you know what that means??? OBAMA WILL WIN BIG STATES THAT SHRILLARY WON - STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, etc!!!

You know what else?? All of those working class white voters? They're all Democrats and even though they voted for Shrillary in the primaries, they won't vote Republican in November, nor will they stay away from the polls. They'll come out and vote for Obama!

So, again, quit beating a dead horse with this tired, sad argument of Obama's electability in big states! My God, who still believes this crap???

Hillary tells another of her brazen LIES, and the Media does not call her on it. She claimed, yesterday, that there was pressure put on her to drop out, after Iowa. That is a complete lie, from the Queen of Lies.

By BETH FOUHY – 19 hours ago

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP)

At a rally under the dome of the West Virginia Capitol, Clinton dismissed calls for her to drop out as "deja vu all over again." She said she had faced similar pressure before going on to win in New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

I'm not sure she's got a good argument in any of the three New York districts, since she's the home state Senator, and Arcuri's seat is listed as "Democrat Favored" by CQ Politics. So it's not exactly a "tough district." Donnelly, Ellsworth, Space, and Shuler are also listed as "Democrat Favored." 7 of the remaining 8 are "Leans Democrat" and only Mahoney in Florida is a true toss-up. I'm sure someone could make a very long and convincing list of toss-up seats and potential Democratic turnover districts where Obama won the primary. This is a pretty pathetic argument for handing the nomination to the loser.

Well, of course she is right. Pathetic will be when Obama loses big in the GE -- but then, of course, it will be once again all Hillary's fault... Has never seen so many of my fellow liberals so delusional -- and so sexist. Ugly as hell. TPM is, unfortunately, leading the way. I am ready for all of this to stop so that I -- and many others, I can assure you -- can check out till November, when we can go and cast our vote -- for Obama, of course -- but do not expect us, after all this treatment, to do much more than that. Voting for Obama will be the only time I will lift my finger to help him. As a Clinton supporter, I am insulted and resentful by all the venom on this site, as well as many other liberal sites, many of which I cannot even read any more. I will never vote for McCain, of course, but at this point I am resigned to what I know in my gut is going to be his victory and a great tragedy to this country. This is not about a race card -- this is about Obama not being ready for prime time. But I have no doubt he will be nominated -- so there's no use to continue worrying about it any more. If Kerry and McGovern so vehemently support him, how can he lose?!

Also to consider: Election in LA where Obama was used in the negative GOP ads. The Dem won.

I don't see anything wrong with Hillary using this argument to gain superdelegates. Because Missouri faces challenges with our rural areas in statewide elections, I am sympathetic to the Clinton argument. The rural areas have placed a chokehold on the Democratic Party for some time.

I think it's time to form the new coaltion as Obama has shown he can do--energized voters so our turnout is higher; new voters and those who just flat don't register or vote at all; and a lot of damned hard work by all Democrats.

Hillary is appealing to newly elected politicians in an effective way--you might not be re-elected. The vast majority of folks want their "jobs" to continue--politicians are not exempt from this.

I'm sorry, either she should be required to show that her campaign hasn't alienated enough Obama supporters to cost her the general, or her "electability" argument should be shown for the implicitly racist smear that most of us already know it is.

This power point has nothing to do with her electability.

It has everything to do with the re-electability of the Freshman class in Congress.

And, looking at the power point, I think she is probably right, having her on the ticket would be better for more of these particular Congressmen and women. Many of the upstate NY seats were won in part because she was there on the Senate race racking up a huge margin, and I have no doubt having her on the ticket will help us retain seats in upstate NY, and maybe even win more. It would probably help in Ohio as well.

The Texas seats I'm less certain of, and I suspect there are other places, like the West and the Plains states, Wisconsin and Michigan, where Obama will be of more help further down on the ticket. There are some key Senate races in many of those states.

But isn't all this secondary to winning the Presidency? And this power point has nothing to do with that.

It's unclear how effective this will be, given that the Hillary camp has been making electability arguments for months even as Obama has consistently won over these super-dels at a greater rate.

I think that the measure of a strategy's "effectiveness" depends on its desired outcome. If the goal here is to win the nomination, I doubt that this power-point will help. On the other hand, what if that is not the goal. What if Exregis above is correct, and this is a bid for the VP slot? I have to admit that this power-point does look like a very strong argument to the supers to use their influence to insist on a unity ticket as the price to be paid for ending this quickly. I am dumbfounded to think that Sen Clinton might actually want the VP's job, but I guess that stranger things have happened. If that is what this is about, I dare say that this power-point might be very effective indeed.

Yeah, only Democrats CANNOT win a presidential election without African Americans, people under 65 and educated voters...yet we are supposed to believe all of these groups will gladly support Hillary, even though they have voted for Obama, yet supposedly none of the demographics Hillary won can be counted on to support Obama?

There is absolutely NO evidence that just because someone, or some group slightly preferred Hillary over Obama or Obama over Hillary that they were necessarily voting against the other person, and wouldn't support them in the general. She can play the voters and the media for fools like this, but superdelegates aren't that stupid, they know her electability argument is bullshit. They've seen the polls, and the general election matchup against McCain is what matters, not fighting among Democrats. Hillary has NEVER been able to explain her bullshit logic behind this assertion:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/hillary-cant-answer-most-basic.html

I will fully cop to the fact that this is silly and superficial, but what a crappy looking Powerpoint!

Graphics cutting off the text, that awful blue background, the lack of consistency between the coloring of the chart of districts and the pie chart...I wouldn't send this to my boss to get a $10,000 funding request approved, much less as an argument to high-level political people that I should be the party's nominee.

Not to stretch too far, but this thing is as sloppy as her campaign has been.

Another day, another spin. Best to ignore it.

Greg nailed it in his last paragraph.

Ban the "Clin-tone!"

Band illogical speech!

Report nonsensical "billarisms" whenever you find them! Don't let them get away with trying to browbeat the public using sentences that make no sense. Pay close attention and call them on their subversion of logic, speech, and language!

If you look beyond the marketing aspects of this PowerPoint ("Please, please, please, don't give up on Hillary just yet), this little presentation is actually a useful little analysis for Obama's campaign. It highlights the areas where they need to put particular focus for the GE. The areas where Hillary was stronger are likely the areas where McCain will be stronger. Those are the parts of the country and the demographics that Obama needs to start targeting his campaign.

I don't think there's any need for defensiveness here. And I don't think it's about "electability." I think it's about learning from the primaries. Where did Obama do well and where can he do better?

I think everyone should calm down. Hillary has shown her true colors and will suffer for it later. I can say now I won't vote for her as a senator in NY if someone can credibly challenge her in a (D) primary. All this racist garbage is going to come up down the road from the republicans, so better to get it out in the open now and expose it to the light of day. Lets get it out there so people can see how ugly and embarrassing it is. I don't think Obama is the messiah, but he is being blunt and honest and respecting the intelligence of the electorate. After the last 16 years of countless lies from the Clintons and the Bushs I think this alone will be enough to pull him through. We CAN and WILL win without the racists in the democratic party. Lets let the primaries play out all the way so the Clintonites have no excuses for losing. If they want to tarnish their reputations further let them. So far Obama has played it cool and still come out on top.

Such a trainwreck. Kind of like when Britney Spears took over the news cycle for a while there, with her getting strapped to a gurney and hauled of to the psych ward and all.

It is difficult for me to not be distracted by Hillary's antics, but as others have been saying up-thread, it's time to move on and get started on McCain.

Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, but you're dumb.

They've run you off HuffingtonPost (thank Dog)so you come here to foul the comments.

Someone needs to tell your mom to make you come out of that basement.

"presenting some factual statistics to support her claim"

That's where she lost me. There really weren't any facts. Maybe she couldn't afford a researcher.

On to West Virginia. The only state that might count for now!.

Why can't we reply to the hilarious posts by "Present"?

The unspoken premise in the power point presentation is that the people who voted for Hillary in those districts will not vote for Obama. Even if current polling backed that up, it's hard to believe that that would be the case come November, nor does it credit Obama's ability to bring in additional votes (at least three of the districts she references are in NY, which has a closed primary system, so the results only apply to Democrats; I don't know how many other of those districts are in closed primary states).

Meanwhile, Dem House candidates are complaining that the ongoing Presidential race is taking up all the attention, volunteers and money that they could use right about now. So, great - even if you credit what she's saying about those 20 districts, the downside of her continuing affects many more than 20 districts.

What is Hillary Clinton saying, that Hispanics won't vote for Obama? That just isn't true. Just as a local note, I'll be out on Saturday to register voters in a group sponsored by the UFCW Local 5. I doubt most Hispanic voters would vote for McCain after the the way the Republican Party (not McCain) has savaged Hispanics.

And what about white women? Are we going to vote into office the party that wants to make our personal decisions about child-bearing, that likes to start wars, that ignores the Constitution, believes in an Imperial Presidency, can't regulate Wall Street, and is led primarily by a bunch of old white guys? I just don't think so.

I am totally with Precint (middle finger!) - Look at the two candidates and how they have run their campaign - which is a great sign of things to come. You tell me - who has run the classiest, least divisvive, most inspiring, least pandering, and most finanshially resposible campaign!

Hillary!

I think Precinct would agree with me that anyone who stands for Mr. Middle Finger is flicking off The U of S.A.

"Half of [the districts] are more than 40% rural." Isn't that another way of saying, "Half of the districts are more than 60% urban." or "The majority of districts are predominantly urban"?

I don't think she's quite at 'damned lies' but her team's got 'lies and statistics' down pretty well.

Sounds like her campaign in in its last throes, to use the words of someone else who would like to obliterate Iran.

Electability? She has negatives over 50%.

"Obama can't close the deal"? Why can't Clinton "close the deal"? Why has she been behind from the very beginning? If "closing the deal" is the standard, he comes much much closer than she does.

No one believes the Dem candidate is actually going to win these "tough, red-leaning" districts anyway, or these red states she's winning. In the general election, they're going to be exactly that: Red.

At this point in the game using the electability strategy is the political equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. Losing in the pledged delegate count, losing in the superdelegate count, losing in the popular vote, losing on the pundit's deathwatch columns, Hillary is using the one argument that belies all the above cited facts. How can she argue for electability in the face of all these facts? She believes that merely asserting so is proof.

As someone said in a post this morning, the electability argument only works for candidates who are ahead, not losers.

Conclusion: it is faith-based politics. She believes this Hail Mary of a prayer is going to be answered by the superdelegates. Bad news, one of the biggest superdelegates of all, Rham Emanuel this very day called Obama the "presumptive nominee."

Ooops, the Hail Mary pass was just intercepted. Game over.

I guess if Al Gore can convince us global warming is real with a PowerPoint slideshow, Hillary Clinton can convince us she should be the nominee with one. Of course, the difference is that Al Gore wants to save the planet and Hillary only wants to save her candidacy. Also Al is talking about something real whereas Hillary is talking about something imaginary.

Her campaign had no plan B and has no exit strategy.

Personally I don't think this is a plea for VP. Not her style. She is still intent on winning because in politics anything can happen in a month.

This casts enough doubt on Obama to keep SDs uncommitted until after all the primaries.

Clinton is still the best candidate.

I am also curious if this is an accurate representation of an official Hillary campaign document. If is it, someone should get fired.

I would not use such a poor quality presentation in a meeting with four mid-level people, much less for its actual audience.

It's a reflection of the terrible campaign she has run. If she were to run the county in the same manner, we would be in big trouble.

Also a reflection of her Bush-esque tendency to see only what she wants to see, hear only what she wants to hear and to parse events to reflect reality as she wishes it to be, not as it actually is...

My hunch is that this is the kind of thing that when not approached through a keyhole looks a lot different. What if we pull back to the 40 swingiest swing districts, rather than the small number their using? The problem with any argument Hillary makes at this point is the sticky fact that she's fudged the truth so many times it's hard to take anything that comes from her campaign at face value. Curious what the Obama pitch is.

I just looked at the Power Point presentation, and obviously it is themed to appeal to House members, esp. those who have elections coming up. Her statistics purport to show that in the tough districts SHE has beaten Obama. I am in no position to debate the statistics, but it seems to be this is not a winning argument for the representatives.

A winning argument would be if she could prove that she can help THEM win THEIR upcoming and future elections. What she shows is how SHE won those districts against Obama.

When it come to helping THEM win elections, I believe Obama has by far the longer coattails: his better ground team, his 50-state strategy, his greater appeal to young volunteers, his better fund-raising prowess, his ability to draw larger crowds. I could go on.

If helping the House members WIN THEIR OWN ELECTIONS is the key here, and those people know what's good for them, there is no question they should declare for Obama and soon.

What a joke citing the 3 new Dems in Upstate New York. Arcuri & Hall are unopposed. Gillibrand should be very strong. And of course, Hillary was a cinch to win in all 3 of these districts in her state in the NY primary. As for the Unnamed Former Party Official who claims that Hillary helped these 3 by pulling in big margins, I can tell you that Hillary never set foot in Arcuri's district to help him campaign. There was a conscious effort not to tie him too closely to her.

When the 2025 is reached, the race is over and not before. Each person has the right to her conviction.

The only arugment that holds water here is the issue Obama has with seniors. Rural voters- a wash. He does fine.

As far as these districts go- I'm not overly concerned, Obama has proven his coattails in helping other candidates this election cycle.

Hillary has every right to argue her points (especially to superdelegates), and truthfully, I don't think the argument presented here is that bad. I do NOT buy it myself and would also point to the disasterous, negative, and ultimately harmful, campaign she has ran and her lack of funding as sound arguments she isn't a great general election candidate. Obama doesn't seem to have these issues and is definitely seen as more of the change candidate in comparison. Voters, more than anything, want change this year.

That said: I'll take this argument over her white voter comments the other day, any day. A bit healthier in tone and definitely less racially charged. Let's parlay the race talk for a while at least until the MSM can get it's act together (if ever). If we do let's not generalize, simplify, and lump constituents into large groups. Let's get into the true details and explain the big picture.

It's pretty clear Obama's the nominee now, many of the more accepting Hillary supporters here seem to agree. Let's move on, campaign to increase turnout, keep it positive, and end this sooner, rather than later (May 20).

Eugene Robinson nails it:

Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/desperate_clinton_is_danger_to.html