The New Republic

Fifty-Two Pick Up. Sounds like a Dutch Leonard novel

- teplukhin2you

March 3, 2008 at 6:40pm

Thanks for the TNR's clarification, Jon----Clinton should quit no matter what happens tomorrow night notwithsatnding the fact that after more than 2,000 delegates have been selected and the separation between them is say 100 or so, she has no claim to the nomination. None.

And if the numbers were reversed all you folks would be clamoring for Obama to give up, right?

As if.  

- schrek2000

March 3, 2008 at 6:57pm

Hey Jonathan, I've read in a few blogs about crafty Texas Republicans planning to vote for Hillary by temporarily switching parties, hoping the ensuing mayhem will bloody the Democrats enough to give McCain an edge in November.  Any chance that effect could be at all significant?  Talkbackers?

- thetraytiger

March 3, 2008 at 7:00pm

Tiger - sounds a mite bit too clever for the average TX Republican

- teplukhin2you

March 3, 2008 at 7:04pm

Here are the two biggest problems about continuing to the convention without a decision- a floor flight is meaningless without the issue of Florida and Michigan resolved, and seating those delegates as stands will rip the party in two. Where is Howard Dean when you really need him? Second, for all the caterwauling about the StuporD's, the fact remains that their job is to vote what they, and no one else, think is best FOR THE PARTY; any other methodology could have been prescribed at the outset. Both Obama and HRH knew this at the start. Of course, if this goes against the candidate who has the most delegates, or greatest popular vote, this will also (after all, we're Democrats) rip the party in two. If one candidate is behind in both votes and delegates, graciousness will be the call for of the day. Otherwise, we are seeing the first flicker of President McCain.

- shislandguy

March 3, 2008 at 7:06pm

thetraytiger, for one thing I've never seen evidence of that sort of thing working in general. Even among your highly partisan types, most people have a greater sense of fair play and civic decency.

For another thing, this stunt would require getting tens of thousands of the most committed, partisan, conservative Republicans to cast an actual, legal vote for Hillary Clinton. I know some Republicans who have voted for Obama because they think they might vote for him in November. I know some Republicans who have voted for Obama because it gives them a chance to vote against Hillary Clinton. But I don't think I know any Republicans who would be willing to cast an actual vote for Hillary Clinton. I mean, if the Republican race had come down to John McCain versus, let's say, Jesse Helms, could you really bring yourself to cast a vote for Jesse Helms for president just to cause mayhem among Republicans?

- rhubarbs

March 3, 2008 at 7:16pm

@ Tiger:

I don't think many Republicans will cross over just to make trouble . . . but given that even a 1% HRC victory coupled with an Obama delegate win will keep Clinton in the race through the summer, I imagine that a few especially crafty Pubs will. (One funny thing about those Republicans -- a thing that sets them apart from Democrats -- is that they like to win elections.)

I'm beginning to think that tomorrow may not end up making much of a difference after all. It looks like Clinton is very sincere in her determination to destroy the Democratic Party. I never thought, for instance, that she'd take the step of insinuating that Obama may be a Muslim, but she surprised me this weekend.

- Hungarian Great Bela Tarr

March 3, 2008 at 7:19pm

Rush is urging TX Republicans to go vote for Hillary, and they don't have to switch parties, because it's an open primary.

- Ivanova

March 3, 2008 at 7:26pm

Even Rush realizes what shrek2000 doesn't; Hillary is a liability for the Democratic Party and can cause nothing but trouble in her failed bid to become president. She has no prayer, save Obama gets caught with a live boy or died girl. Nevertheless, her sense of entitlement will carry her for at least a little longer.

- mpatrickhendri

March 3, 2008 at 7:37pm

schrek, Obama has around a million vote lead, (not counting the sham beauty contests in Michigan and Florida) has won more than twice as many states (26 contests vs. 11), and leads in pledged delegates by 10%, yeah, as if in such a situation anybody but a loon would pretend it is pretty much equal. Oh wait, that is what Clinton supporters do. Honestly, do you have any shame when viewing these numbers and then spouting off such easily refutable notions. Of course if the situation were reversed Obama would have been toast a long time ago, because money would have dried up.

I will admit if Hillary beats Obama big in Ohio and Texas then it is a whole new ballgame. But don't act as though she has already done so.

I like John McCain, and will be happy enough if he wins, but I truly don't imagine how dense Hillary is if she thinks she can call all supporters of Obama naive delusional cultists and then expect to win in November. Do you really think that or are you a McCain supporter?

- blackton

March 3, 2008 at 8:26pm

While ultimately I agree with Tep and Rhubarbs in the unlikelihood of many TX Repubs physically bringing themselves to ticking off the box for Hillary Clinton, this race is going to be pretty damn close.  It wouldn't take too many organized Dem-haters to flip a delegate here and there, especially in the evening caucuses.  

And if Hillary manages to deny Obama a TX delegate win... Hoo-ah! It's gonna be a party in Denver!

I hope that this "for the Party's sake" line is resonating with TX/OH voters, and they put an end to this campaign's *silly season.*

- thetraytiger

March 3, 2008 at 8:33pm

and by the way, after tomorrow, there are 11 more contests, it is conceivable that Obama will easily win most of them, and probably only lose Pa, so it is likely he will win 2/3rds of the states and hold a clear majority of the popular vote at the end.

Hillary is the last gasp of the baby boom generation, pissing on the next in their never ending quest for relevance. How ironic that the greatest generation gave birth to the worst generation, spoiled, arrogant, and entitled. Bush and the Clintons personify the worst traits of that generation and I shall be more than happy when they pass from the scene. They have sucked the lifeblood out of America for far too long.

- blackton

March 3, 2008 at 8:33pm

I don't think the GOP will influence the texas raise because while some might vote for Hillary to cause chaos many will probably vote against her just for the sake of voting against her.  If you look at the responses to the post about ball room dancing and caucusing you'll find at least one person willing to spend a whole night caucusing against her just for fun.

- Maxblum13

March 3, 2008 at 8:47pm

Blackton, my friend, I simply am reacting to what I deem to be a narrative being pre-sold by Team Obama that Clinton has to "win big" in both Texas and Ohio tomorrow to continue to be a serious contender. I'd agree that were she to lose both she'd be well advised to reconsider her efforts. But should she win Ohio and especially should she win Texas she has every right to fight on. I understand the Obama campaign's strident desire to usher her off stage right; the bloom seems very much coming off the rose of Obamamania and we can notice that the to date somnambulent press is actually---gasp---asking hard questions of that candidate. Moreover, he needs time before the general to tack hard center-right (as I'm convinced he will do) without engaging in obvious flip-flopping. The longer the campaign the more untimely will be his policy shifts should he ultimately win the nomination.

I'm of the belief that Clinton is a solid, well qualigfied candidate who has established her ability to win the states a Democrat (any Democrat) must win in the fall. I believe Obama is also well qualified but has been largely deficient in that regard, no offense intended to our friends in Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming (as of Saturday likely). Maybe tomorrow will prove me wrong and if so I'll reconsider. But I do wish someone would count up the electoral votes of these candidates' respective wins because I think that would tell us something as significant as the number of delegates committed. (And no, I don't know the answer to that question as I'm not that far gone into this mess.)

As to why would Obama's people support Clinton should she prevail? Because he will tell them to, that's why, with all his soaring gifts of oratory going full blast at the convention. And she had better be prepared to do the same should the situation be reversed.

Either one would be a far better president than Sen. McCain, said with utmost respect for his extraordinary sacrifices to this country. I am prepared to support either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton to the full extent of my heart and soul and checkbook.

I guess I should respond in conclusion to your nasty slap at my boomer co-generationists but the arthritis in my hands is killing me and besides, I think there's a MASH rerun on TV now.

Be well...stay committed...victory in November.

- schrek2000

March 3, 2008 at 9:44pm

oh, please schrek-

If obama had lost even four contests in a row, he would be getting the royal huckabee right now.

- miceelf

March 3, 2008 at 9:45pm

Blackton, are you even remotely serious?Your Clinton hating is coloring your judgement.  Right now, even without Fla, HRC has won 47.5% of the vote to Obama's 52.5% And she should get out if she wins Ohio and Texas even by slender margins? Why? Isn't this a democracy? Isn't the general election after PA STILL seven months away? Let's say she wins  OH, TX, and RI narrowly and that closes the popular vote to 51.5 to 48.5. Should she still get out? Why?  Can you give me one example in presidential primary history where a candidate trailed by so little and got out of the race? Do you think Obama would get out if it was that close? Did his patron Teddy Kennedy in 80? Did Reagan in 76? Any politician?

Someone smarter than me called this Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Folks hate her so bad that they're willing to suspend a belief in the democratic process just to see her fail. That's fine, but some of the HRC haters' handwringing here is bordering on parody. Not since Andrew Sullivan proclaimed she should get out unless she carried Vermont have I read such pathological hatred masquerading as actual political analysis. C'mon, your guy is still 90% likely to get the nomination, show a little class.

Remember, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

- peter1943

March 3, 2008 at 9:57pm

"But I do wish someone would count up the electoral votes of these candidates' respective wins because I think that would tell us something as significant as the number of delegates committed."

Uh, why? Do you seriously think that Obama would not win, for example, California if he is the nominee?

- WoodyBombay

March 3, 2008 at 10:05pm

schrek --  I haven't ruled out the possibility of Clinton winning the nomination by some means.  However, regardless of what Obama says, I won't be voting for her if she's beats out my chosen nominee (Obama).

- epackard-02

March 3, 2008 at 10:18pm

The vote is turning to favor Clinton because Obama's 15 minutes of glory are about up.  As his weakness becomes more and more evident, so will the nomination.

- ctrogers

March 3, 2008 at 10:19pm

"Uh, why? Do you seriously think that Obama would not win, for example, California if he is the nominee?"

I think it would just be an interesting exercise as to who's won what. Sure there are states each won that the other will (Massachussetts being the better example than California where Obama might have some Hisanic voter problems), but there are prrobably far more states that Obama has won that are simply out of reach when we start counting electoral votes. And if Clinton has shown greater strength in those states Democrats need to win and traditionally have, isn't that an argument that she has been and continues to be a viable general election candidate? That's my principal point.

For me it's all about the map; that is, who wins? I understand the emerging Obama "purple state" strategy---his magic works, say, in Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico...all states won by Bush in '04. I'm dubious frankly, but even so, if he can't deliver Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (won by Kerry by a handful), a few key others isn't that a problem? I don't claim any answers; I only raise the question in connection with the non-transformational question of electability and the general evaluation of Sen. Clinton's status as a candidate right now.  

In sum, I like her chances better in the general, that's all. A rich area for reasoned disagreement to be sure and one with arguments on both sides but one that I believe shouldn't be given the bum's rush. Not tomorrow night, anyway.

- schrek2000

March 3, 2008 at 10:47pm

I find it amazing that Obama and Clinton supporters sometimes hate the other candidate so much that they would rather four more years of a Republican administration.

I support Obama, but will gladly support Clinton if she becomes the nominee.  In terms of actual policy, they are very close, but miles apart from McCain (the post-2004 McCain, that is).  To vote for McCain simply because you hate Clinton (or Obama - just listen to many of the Clinton folks) personally suggests to me that you care very little about actual policy.

- bhunziker

March 3, 2008 at 10:49pm

bhunziker, I am in your boat.  We are talking differences in how to steer the ship here, not what direction it should go.  That being said, I would love to see state-by-state electoral college predictions, a la schrek2000.  I personally like Obama's chances vs McCain in the general more than Clinton's, but I would love to see some estimates on the numbers.  Anyone have a good blg/dyi link?  There seem to be so many of those this election cycle.

- maxzig1

March 4, 2008 at 1:26am

All this talk about Obama winning the popular vote, while true, ignores an issue that Hillary will beat him to a pulp with if he doesn't win both Texas and Ohio (which he almost certainly won't): Hillary might be behind in popular votes, but she's well ahead with Dem voters: www.theperfectworld.us/.../exitpollsum.htm

The Dem base--who has strongly supported Hillary--won't feel kindly about a candidate who won on the basis of independents and liberals.

"I would love to see some estimates on the numbers."

There have been two I've heard of thus far. McCain is way, way ahead of Obama in Florida and New Jersey (of all places), whereas he's only slightly ahead of Clinton in Florida and well behind her in New Jersey.

- jmkerr

March 4, 2008 at 2:26am

schek- RE: wisconsin. Remember that as you said this is a very vulnerable state. And Obama really beat her handily there. Virginia in play as well with him, but not with her.

- miceelf

March 4, 2008 at 6:28am

For me, it's all about beating McCain. I believe the numbers continue to show Obama has the best shot at that, and if he does well today, Clinton will be putting herself ahead of the party. But I don't begrudge her that ambition. However, I do resent those in the party who will continue to play "on the other hand" when they frame this battle, as if it's just a game of Stratego.

Why weaken Obama when the goal is the ouster of the Bush machine? Clinton has handed NAFTA to McCain as an issue. What else is she going to do that hurts Obama's chances?

- fougasseu

March 4, 2008 at 7:26am

Who keeps everything from 2004 that was blue blue and adds Iowa, New Mexico, Colorada, and Nevada - which brings us to 273? That's the candidate to vote for. I think Obama has a better chance of taking those states. Ohio would be great, but I say forget Florida altogether. I don't think Virginia is in play, even with Webb on the ticket. (Web won by less than 1% and currently has a negative approval rating).

While I support Obama and think he's the better GE candidate, I can't help but think that a Clinton/Obama unity ticket would be an unstoppable force, and could pave the way for sixteen years of Democratic administration.

- bhunziker

March 4, 2008 at 7:29am

If Clinton wins the popular vote tonight--and given California, New Jersey, Florida, and Massachsetts--Obama's credibility as a candidate will be under enormous challenge. His loss of credibility will have a major impact on superdelegates, which is exactly the role that the agreed upon DNC rules give to the superdelegatees.

If Obama loses the popular votei n Texas and Ohio tonight, he will not be the nominee. His credibility will be diminshed enormously. If he wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas, he will show that he actually can win something outside of a small caucus-controlled state, and that will strengthen him.

- Eos

March 4, 2008 at 7:55am

I'm going to repost a post from another article. Caucuses are unrepresentative. Maybe Obama should stand asie for Clinton after all the big-state primaries she's won:

Noam,

You say, "On top of everything else, the Clintonites will point to their Texas primary victory and a (likely) Texas caucus loss as evidence that caucus states are screwy and should be viewed skeptically. It's much too convenient an argument for them."

Why, pray tell, should this argument be viewed skeptically?  Why is it too convenient argument?  Perhaps because it's true.

Let's look at WASHINGTON STATE -- where both of them campaigned!

Here are the numbers for the Feb 9th CAUCUS:

32,220 people participated.

Obama won 68%

Clinton won 31%

This translated into 53 delegates for Obama and 25 delegates for Hillary.

Now, here are the numbers for the Feb 19th PRIMARY:

557,213 people participated!  (That dwarfs the caucus numbers.)

Obama won 49%

Clinton won 46%

This translates into, well, nothing...  Because they're using the caucus to determine delegates to the convention!

Now, setting aside the rules for a second, I want somebody to construct a rational argument as to why we should pay attention to caucuses under circumstances like these?!  This is ridiculous.

You people are so biased against Hillary Clinton that you would prefer to string together a bunch of small state caucuses with a few primary wins AND then claim it's so obvious that Obama is so much stronger.  Despite those of you in the media -- who think this is all a game -- I think the entire primary process, taken together, is supposed to give you an indication of the relative strength of a candidate.  These caucus numbers should give us SERIOUS PAUSE before we start extrapolating to talk about the dominant momentum of Obama

- jadamsf

March 4, 2008 at 9:49am

Bhunz, if there's a Clinton/Obama ticket you may as well call off the November election and save everyone the time, money, and stress. It would truly be a dream ticket and unstoppable. And I think it's plausible, unlike an Obama/Clinton ticket which would provide too many challenges to all parties concerned.

And I do believe this will all get worked out well before the convention because not even Democrats are self-destructive enough to have a floor battle three months before the general. The down-ticket ramifications would be terrible, it would kill fund-raising, etc. So I believe at some point the party's truly heavy hitters sit everyone down and say "look, this is the way it's gotta be, and you (Clinton/Obama) are out and you are going to fully endorse (Clinton/Obama)". I make no predictions as to who that person will be. No one can. Time will tell.  

And there are ample honorable deals to be made, I think. Barack can have dibs on '12 (if Hillary loses) or '16 (to which Hillary's VP will be made to agree) or the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. Hillary can have Number 2 in the Senate after Reid steps aside and Durbin becomes Majority Leader, or she can have the committee chairmanship of her choice. Or she can have dibs on '12 should Obama lose.

You have superdelegates and party leadership for a reason you know, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of TNR elite, sometimes you just have to make some use of the smoke-filled room. Or a smoke-free, green friendly environmental space. Whatever.

Two great candidates. This will get settled in due course.  

- schrek2000

March 4, 2008 at 10:01am

jadamsf:

You're right! Caucuses suck! They really should be abolished!

But they're a part of the process. Why are rules so difficult for Clinton supporters to respect? I fully support changing the process so that a) Caucuses (Caucii?) are abolished and b) The role of superdelegates are decreased. But it's totally absurd to change the rules midway through the process so that your candidate benefits, a la Florida and Michigan. Oh, and your example comparing Washington's caucus and primary was pure silliness -- everyone who voted at the primary knew that it was just a glorified beauty contest. (And Obama still won). And complaining about the popular vote when the rules of the game say that they're basically irrelevant is counterproductive as well.

They both knew the rules. Obama is going to win, fair and square, playing by those rules. The only way he doesn't do so is if superdelegates go against the will of the people, which would totally suck but, again, is completely within the rules of the game.

- emh77

March 4, 2008 at 10:26am

schrek, you are right, Hillary's only shot if she does wrest the nomination is Obama on the ticket, but don't count the victory just yet. electorally the odds favor Republicans. but Hillary has to change her tune, she can't keep mocking Obama supporters and Obama and credibly expect Obama to accept the VP slot (he will tell her so behind closed doors so that she can avoid the embarrassment of being rejected publicly). And as to the notion that Obama voters will vote for Hillary because he tells them to, that is silly I am afraid. I will vote for McCain over even a Clinton/Obama ticket, simply because policy wise I trust McCain more, but I see the logic of it. If Obama isn't on the ticket, I can foresee millions of voters simply staying home. Obama has run on the idea of bringing people into the process, and he has, but if they are told their vote is not important in the primaries, why do you think they will think it is important in the general?

- blackton

March 4, 2008 at 10:41am

Tonight's results will matter a lot, of course. But only up to a point. It seems pretty likely that

- Anonymous

March 4, 2008 at 10:46am

Blackton,

What policies do you favor McCain on?  Health care?  The environment?  Judicial appointments? Taxes? Job creation?  The war? Iran?

I really want to understand the logic of someone who agrees more with Obama than McCain on policy, but more with McCain than Clinton, when in fact - as everyone knows - Obama and Clinton are very close on policy.  

- bhunziker

March 4, 2008 at 11:05am

"what I deem to be a narrative being pre-sold by Team Obama that Clinton has to 'win big' in both Texas and Ohio tomorrow to continue to be a serious contender."

Dude, that's not a pre-sold partisan narrative. That's a mathematical fact. Hillary is behind in delegates, states won, and total votes cast. Mathematically, she cannot catch Obama on total states won. But she could, in theory, catch or surpass him in delegates won and votes cast. But doing so will require her to start winning by margins as large as Obama has been winning lately. If she doesn't win Texas and Ohio by big margins, and then go on to win the majority of the remaining states by similarly big margins, she will go to Denver behind in delegates, states won, and total votes cast. That's not spin, that's arithmetical fact. The algebra here is pretty simple; you can do it for yourself.

Democrats have a name for people who rely on questioning the basic rules of mathematics: "Republicans." Hillary claims to be the best fighter in the party and to have the experience it takes to battle against long odds. Fine. Time for her to stop trying to repeal the laws of arithmetic and start proving that she can battle back to score big wins against long odds. Less talk, more action.

- rhubarbs

March 4, 2008 at 11:11am

Blackie, to be clear, I don't believe I said---and I sure don't believe---that Hillary's "only" shot is with Barack as her VP. Chatter is that she's decided on Ohio governor Strickland for her running mate which if true seems like a solid, politically conservative course of action as it moves her a long ways to securing Ohio's valuable electorals. So if she holds Kerry's electorals, picks up Ohio and New Mexico she should be ok, even maybe losing Wisconsin by my count. Throw in a decent shot at Florida, she's in good shape.

And I like her approach (if I'm anywhere remotely near right) better than Obama's. But that's me.

And for what I think is an excellent website with cool current and past maps, see www.electoral-vote.com. You can click through to a "past elections" page to the 2004 results and hover over individual states for spreads. Check it out as a resource. Nice page on differing polling techniques, too, as I gather the web master is a complete geek, and a reasonably non-partisan (though clearly Democratic) one to boot.

- schrek2000

March 4, 2008 at 11:58am

Schreck, The Electoral Count Stands as follows:

Obama: 190

Washington 11

Idaho 4

Colorado 9

Utah 5

Kansas 6

Nebraska 5

North Dakota 3

Minnesota 10

Wisconsin 10

Iowa 7

Missouri 11

Illinois 21

Louisiana 9

Alabama 9

Georgia 15

South Carolina 8

Virginia 13

DC 3

Maryland 10

Delaware 3

Connecticut 7

Maine 4

Clinton: 161

California 55

Arizona 10

Nevada 5

New Mexico 5

Oklahoma 7

Arkansas 6

Tennessee 11

New Jersey 15

New York 31

Massachusetts 12

New Hampshire 4

Note: This of course doesn't include Florida and Michigan, which weren't actually competed in.

As for winning in states Democrats must win, I seem to recall some of the closest battles last election were in the upper Midwest: Can Democrats afford to nominate someone who can't win in the Mississippi valley?

- Crock1701

March 4, 2008 at 11:59am

Whoops, forgot two more for Obama:

Alaska 3

Hawaii 4

- Crock1701

March 4, 2008 at 12:02pm

Also, if you go by "Blue" or "Near-Blue" States (Those that voted either for Gore or Kerry) Then the count is Obama 11 (WA, MN, IA, WI, IL, CT, MD, ME, DE, DC, HI), Clinton 6 (CA, NM, NJ, NY, NH, MA).

- Crock1701

March 4, 2008 at 12:39pm

Nicely done, Crock, thanks! Definite food for thought and debate here. Hmmm...add this, subtract that, they both win these, they both lose these....nice stuff.

- schrek2000

March 4, 2008 at 12:56pm

bhunziker  you misread me, I said I support McCains policies more than either Obama or Clinton, but will vote for Obama regardless (although I believe he is much more of a good times President, so I actually prefer it hand been 2012). I support McCain on the war in Iraq, taxes, immigration (McCain-Kennedy), campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold). I like Obama's health care plan (I think Hillary's mandates are a disaster, a poison pill that will kill the whole plan, Wisconsin has a better policy), believe he will choose the best judges (he was a Constitutional law Prof. as opposed to a corporate shill like Hillary)

As far as job creation, HA. there won't be any, not for a while.

Both Obama and Clinton are offering far more than they can deliver, I think Obama has much easier room to get out of it since nobody really knows what he is promising. The same with McCain, he promises nothing, so won't disappoint. Only Hillary will take the fall since she is running on solutions that you and I know won't work in a recession. I think she can even sink below Bush's ratings (in the highly unlikely event she wins the general)

This in not 1992, I think whoever wins just might regret winning. (except Hillary, she knows that in 200 years she will be remembered soley as the first woman president, so she won't really care about anything else)

- blackton

March 4, 2008 at 1:50pm

Blackton, fair enough - I did in fact misread you.  

I certainly wouldn't be sick if McCain won. I'd disagree with him most of the time, but I could respect him.  I was never able to do that with Bush.

- bhunziker

March 4, 2008 at 2:11pm

fougasseu,

"Why weaken Obama when the goal is the ouster of the Bush machine? Clinton has handed NAFTA to McCain as an issue. What else is she going to do that hurts Obama's chances?"

I disagree. Basically, "a pale and cloistered virtue" etc. If Obama can't defend himself now, then he's unlikely to withstand much more withering firepower in the fall. I mean, the NAFTA stuff is like 80mph pitches in minor-league AA ball. No one's even scrutinized his economic program. No one's asked him why his top f-p adviser is a young person who's on record as arguing for US military intervention against Israel (she recently said, to Ha'aretz, that she doesn't know what she meant to say-- nice).  

I liek the guy but I have a growing feeling that he's going to have a very rough time of it in the general election. btw, McCain just publicly announced that he is determined to compete hard in California. Obama's run a good race but he's mainly the benficiary of Billary's mistakes, Penn's stupidity etc. He really needs to up his game.

- teplukhin2you

March 4, 2008 at 2:59pm

I don't think the delegte count matters as much as you say. Neither candidate can get the nomination with pledged delegates because they have divided them too evenly. The real consequence of today's voting will be credibility as a strong candidate with broad apppeal and momentum. If Hillary wins both, it means that Obama will have performed extremely poorly in large states and that Clinton has performed extremely well in large states. If Obama wins today, then that narrative will be undone. There is an enormous amount at stake for both candidates. Today could well be the beginning of the end for Obama.

- Eos

March 4, 2008 at 3:09pm

> blackton said:

>  ...

>        I like John McCain, and will be happy enough if he wins ....

>

And why should someone who would be happy if John McCain  wins be giving advice on who the Democratic nominee should be?

- tj_emerson

March 4, 2008 at 5:03pm