That's what I want to see happen, of course! I hope that's not entirely a fantasy.

I saw a poll taken in Wisconsin 2/6-2/7 that shows Clinton stil ahead there. I wonder what that will look like after Maine's contest today, and the Potomac primaries Tuesday...

Meanwhile, I wonder if it's worth writing letters to the superdelegates begging them to look at who won the most pledged delegates, and not to overrule the will of the people. If the party elite shove Clinton down our throats I'll be very upset.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

If Clinton won clearly, not by superdelegates, there would be some justification for involving Obama on the ticket. But to force him to stand down by threatening superdelegates (who have no justification at all) would simply be to trash the input of the young, and they would take their votes and go home.

Michaela

This is a good thing. Good for the Party and good for America.

Kick out the authoritarian Clinton thugs and restore the Party to its hay days of respect for its core values and constituencies.

It worked for front-runner Giuliani.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

So, it's pretty plain that they currently are:

a) aware they can't win outright.
b) want to set expectations for a convention fight for superdelegates.  

Oh but in Maine, she has cried, again? Just yesterday.

"Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wipes her eye as she listens to a disabled U.S. veteran in the audience tell his story

AP Photo:

It worked..the last two tear up. And three's a charm.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

He didn't actually say that did he? That's just more Clinton delusion, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_Way_Corrigan

thanks openleft

But there's no explanation for how the Clintons could get the 'party grandees' to convince Obama to accept the second spot.

Followed by a quote from one of the Clinton camp's spinners.

Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party's leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.

And now a little statement from Paul Hackett, who had his own difficulties with the party insiders.

Remember?

Hackett, who says he would still like to help "retool" the Democratic Party, ends his meteoric political career with some advice for other maverick candidates. "They simply can't rely on any of the party infrastructure to help them, and they must assume that people at high levels will work against them. These guys," he says of the party insiders, "view the Senate as a club. They're not gonna welcome you if one day they turn the key on the clubhouse door and you are sitting there with your feet on the table flippin' them the middle finger. I understand that from their perspective. It works for them, but not for the rest of us out here."

And you actually write "But there's no explanation for how the Clintons could get the 'party grandees' to convince Obama to accept the second spot." with a straight face?

HE'S PART OF THE CLUB, BOOMAN!!!

Your naiveté is astounding!!!

Your so-called "numbers"?

Phhffftttt!!!

I wrote a quick refutation of your numbers two days ago.

Here.

As of Feb. 8th, (Go to the original for links.):

Of the almost 800 super delegates, less than half have decided whom they will support at the convention; the rest are sitting on the fence, according to ongoing calls by ABC News to the super delegates.

Of the 400 super delegates who have committed, Clinton is leading, with the support of 213 super delegates; 142 are committed to Obama, according to the latest ABC News survey.

That's almost exactly 2 to 3 in favor of Ms. Clinton. Should that number hold up...and I'm betting that since the Clinton machine now realizes that it is in a serious battle, the remaining 400 or so will be hearing all KINDS of blandishments from the Clinton people...that means that 530 (or probably more) superdelegates  will be for Clinton.

They need to capture 2,025 votes to win, right? 530 is one quarter of what she needs, right there.

How many has she already? So far she has 840 pledged.

That's a projected 1370 already.

That means she only needs 655 to win.

Do you really think that she cannot win 655 more pledged delegates in the coming primaries? Hell Booman, out of the 4049 possible delegates that can be won in primaries, 1996 have been picked so far . Make that an even half for ease of calculation.

She has won 840 out of the first half...a mix of states that is just about as general as is the mix of the second half. Why do you suppose that she can't win ANOTHER 800+?

And there it is, Clinton for Dem candidate in '08.

Edwards' delegates?

Shit, man...he only HAS 26!!!

Game, set and match.

As is usual with you (much like the left-wing-of-the-right-wing CIA mouthpiece who you so often publish and defend here, Larry "But I quit!!! I quit!!!" Johnson), when opposed by any real content you simply do not answer.

Good answer, Booman!!!

Because you have no answer.

Your numbers...like mine and those of every other unconnected pundit...will be just like dead leaves blowing in the spin wind once the real movers and shakers get through with them.

Yer dreamin' Boo.

Yer dreamin'.

Gore?

Edwards II.

Only not even willing to get in there and do the down and dirty.

Like your stance with Edwards, you decide what you want on the basis of...well to terll you the truth I'll be damned if I know WHAT your "basis" is, but it's mos' DEF a virulent form of anti-Hillary disease, just for starters...you decide what you want and then you assemble numbers that agree with that desire.

Sorry Booman.

Even if you're right, it's for all the wrong reasons.

Grow up.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

She'll be able to justify going ahead with the campaign, but she'll have no case that Obama should concede.

That's the whole point.  She'll be able to justify going ahead.  That's always been the plan.  Ignore the states leading up to March 4, win March 4 and go on to win Pennsylvania.  Then the pressure really starts on one or the other to compromise.  

She's doing two things here.  She's trying to neutralize the good media narrative Obama will receive from his wins last night by saying that they don't matter AND she's starting the discussion on who should compromise after Pennsylvania by saying it should be him.  

And Al Gore?  What a freakin' disaster. Al Gore as a compromise candidate is a laugh.

I agree that Obama has momentum--but he needs to win some big states too.  If he loses both Ohio and Texas, then Clinton will have won (or at least, not lost) NY, NJ, MA, OH, MI, FL, TX, and CA.  I'm an Obama supporter, but even I would think that she has legitimacy at that point.

He really speaks to me when he says:

Make no mistake, there are false hopes. Believing that if we ignore problems they will go away is a false hope. Believing that, if we are patient and wait in line, the powerful will give us a turn at the wheel is a false hope. The greatest false hope is perhaps the prejudice that only insiders know what is best, and that only those who have spent time in the White House know how to make government work. When pundits ask, "What does change mean?" they let slip the false hopes and prejudices they cling to.

If that were true, there would be no need for fresh leadership. We wouldn't even need an election this year. We could just return everyone by acclamation. But, then, will that return us to peace and prosperity?

We know very well what change means, and we know what hope means. That is why we must learn to ride the waves of change and that is why America is crying out for leadership that takes possession of the problems we face.

For me, the bolded text goes to the heart of why I was just astonished at the MLK/LBJ comments. The top-down arrogance of the statement was just breathtaking. Saying that Obama's approach is "naive" is just an excuse for their inability to solve problems.

Also, The Baltimore Sun endorsed Sen. Obama today. And they also provide audio from the interview by the Sun editorial page editor for both Sens. Obama and Clinton. I thought that was a very interesting feature, and I think other papers should follow suit.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

1.Fearless daring; intrepidity.
2.Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.
3.An act or instance of intrepidity or insolent heedlessness: warned the students than any audacities committed during the graduation ceremony would be punished.

If they can get out the black vote and convince just enough of the Catholic vote.

And get the election machinery to allow the votes to be counted.

Ouch.

But as for the Clinton camp, I don't think they care if they wreck the party but secure themselves as victors. Given that they really seem to believe they're doing the right thing in this -- that is, that only they are trully qualified for the job -- well it makes me wonder that people make such a big deal about the messianism coming from the Obama people. Team Clinton is just as bad.

The more control, the more that requires control. This is the road to chaos. -Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment