Hillary winning a brokered-convention after losing the pledged delegate race would be much akin to hunting rabbits with a shotgun - you may gain your prize but the mess that you're left with isn't really worth having...

The Underground Railroad

Reality.

All this angst in the blogosphere about what Hillary should or shouldn't do - it makes me feel like I did before New Hampshire when a little part of me wanted her to pull it out.

The reality is that if no one has enough delegates to clinch the nomination the rules don't say that the person with the most pledged delegates automatically wins by default.  The reality is that Hillary Clinton has just as much right to try to win this nomination by getting superdelegates to vote for her as Obama does.  Those are the rules.  The fact that you don't like her or the system doesn't change that reality.

You will argue that it would be better for the party if this didn't go on to a brokered convention. Yes.

But the responsibility for seeing that this doesn't go to a brokered convention isn't a burden that falls on only Hillary's shoulders.  It's  Obama's responsibility too.  

He needs to win.

It is impossible for him to win on points.  He can only win with a knockout.

Stop letting him off the hook and putting all the onus on Hillary to 'do the right thing.'  There's plenty of time after March 4 to write these 'do the right thing' posts.  

Right now the onus isn't on her it is on him.  If after the string of victories he is having, he can't beat Hillary Clinton in a head to head contest in Ohio or Texas and knock her out, then part of the responsibility for the ensuing mess has to be his.  

really think they are waiting for Ohio and Texas, or are they waiting to see if they can convince the party to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan?

Another question : If McCain dies on the campaign trail, who becomes the front runner?  Normally I wouldn't be so morbid, but his 'victory' speech the other night left me and everyone I was watching with thinking he's hanging on by a thread.

I just can't envision her conceding anything unless she is forced to (by whom I don't know). Remember, the conventional wisdom says the Clintons never loose, and I fear they take this as the gospel truth. Aside from the ego issues involved, it is more than likely that they've promised quite a few favors to quite a few people over the past eight years, thus the aura of grim desperation surrounding the campaign right now. I hope you're right, but I'm expecting fireworks at the convention.

Also available in orange.

I am watching Morning Joe right now... and Andrea Mitchel is DESPERATELY trying to justify Hillary's existence in the race. Pathetic. We know where her support lies. Um, might I suggest that she's a racist? I think so, anyway.

Its a good post Boo and you make some interesting points BUT, it doesn't matter. Regardless of who wins, the downward spiral that this country on can't be stopped. Go read the Harpers' Horton article. It is quite the summary and I can't rebut it. After the Senate collaps re FISA and the bullshit Horse and Pony show in the House, this country is finished as the great experiment. The Constitution has been destroyed and regardless of who takes the WH in November, the country has been placed on a path to its final destruction. The FISA vote will be determined as the final straw. The fact that the Dems couldn't protect the basic Constitutional protection of Individual Privacy is the greatest disgrace in our history.

She will not win the total pledged delegate count.

But - I submit if she eeks out wins in TX and OH she will continue on.

And the media will encourage her / pretend it's all so 'unknown what will happen' in order to keep the story alive.

If Obama wins either state on March 4th, she will bow out gracefully.

If Clinton wins both, onward to PA!

Don't you want to be able to help play kingmaker? I'll be a blast - enjoy it!

This is something I suggested in the aftermath of New Hampshire.

We know that the election results in New Hampshire didn't match the exit polls. Exit polls are used to determine the honesty of election officials overseas, but for some reason (election fraud?) they now aren't used in America when they diverge from "official counts."

Kucinich funded a partial recount. It was incomplete because it only covered a few towns. Additionally, the Secretary of State didn't allow the recounters to compare the voter sign-in rosters versus the total number of votes, a very quick way to figure out fraud. Nor did the SoS allow examination of uncounted or mismarked ballots. Or to allow examination of the memory cards in the Diebold voting machines to see if they'd been tampered with (these machines are easily tampered with).

What has been found out and yet not covered in the MSM is that certain locations show wildly inaccurate results. There is no logical explanation, for ex, why Clinton would get a couple hundred extra votes at one polling place while Obama is undercounted.

Now, imagine that Clinton has emerged from a brokered convention with the nomination, maybe with the help of some delegates from the tainted non-primaries in Michigan and Florida, and suddenly nine months after the fact someone manages a full recount in New Hampshire that shows fraud favoring Clinton. No matter that she and her campaign may not have been in a position to have thrown the election her way. How does America react to a candidate with so many negatives after she has been proven to have cheated to steal the election?

Ugly, ain't it? But that's the way the game is played.

She hasn't given up on the goal of getting Florida delegates seated.

If she lets that challenge smoulder until all the states have had their primaries/caucus the angst wouldn't necessarily create any anti-Hillarybullying votes.
It becomes a Bill question where you label Hillary a 'sticker' who is willing to honor a cause with a good fight or when that honor morphs into a Machiavellian ends justifies the Rovian means.

I would make the argument that it is not an advantage for the Democrats to settle on a candidate 6 months before the convention.  People, including Howard Dean, are saying it would be a disaster if the nomination fight goes on into May.  I think just the opposite.  The best thing for Obama would be if the nomination was in doubt when the convention opens.

Suppose Clinton reads your post and says, Booman, you are so convincing, I have decided to drop out tomorrow.  Fine.  Now Obama is the nominee and the Republicans get to unleash their Swift Boaters.  For 9 months of incessant attacks.  

But isn't there going to be negative campaigning from the Clinton camp if she stays in the race?  Of course there will be.  But it will be mild compared to what will come after her, and in fact, whatever attacks Clinton comes up will to a certain extent neutralize the Swift Boats when they do attack after the convention.  If the Swift Boaters come up with something similar to an attack that Clinton had already made, but sexed up, the reaction of the voters will probably be that this is old news, Obama has already responded to this.  And if it's not new, it ain't news, so the media won't be amplifying the attacks by repeating them.

The other reason for not settling this thing six months ahead of time is that things can change in six months.  Maybe, Bernanke's remarks today notwithstanding, we are in a deep recession in August.  Maybe that makes Clinton's poll numbers go way up.  (At the moment, although it doesn't seem that way, the Obama advantage in a national head to head matchup with Clinton is tiny, within the margin of error.)  Maybe Obama's star quality turns out to be ephemeral.  A lot of things can happen, and I don't think it would be wrong for the superdelegates to put more stock in August poll numbers than in February primary results.  I would say rather that that was the actual function of the superdelegates.

So, essentially, what Yogi said.

If you drift over to TalkLeft you will see a different reality. They are giddy with polls that show that Clinton will smash Obama. Really.

OT: I really hate VISTA. I installed three programs, got them authorized and on my iLok and now they're all invisible. I know that they're there on my computer but they're gone.