Maybe because the voters don't want her to? ABC:

Pushing back against political punditry...

The audacity!

more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race – even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

Despite Obama's advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama's supporters, 42 percent say so.

I mean, just because the "creative class" wants to go on the teebee and say what everybody else is saying on the teebee to those foolish enough to pay attention to the teebee is no reason to do what they're saying on the teebee to those foolish enough to watch the teebee, let alone believe what it says. Eh?

Interestingly:

Clinton continues as the preferred choice as Obama's running mate, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they'd like him to pick her if he's the nominee. That peaks at 59 percent of African-Americans, 47 percent of Clinton supporters and 42 percent of women (vs. 34 percent of men).

Maybe Obama should just throw the pollsters under the bus, too?

UPDATE Maybe shit like this is a reason she won't quit? Would you? Hey, come on! Where's your sense of humor? Stay gold, Pony Boy! Stay gold!

Hillary writes an Op-Ed in the NY Daily News (the exclusive is a nice touch. As is the choice of newspaper itself).

First, she deals with the latest smear from Obama and his lying liars*:

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

As anybody with any sense of justice or simple human decency would be. If anybody has any links from Obama supporters calling bullshit** on this latest smear, would they please leave them in comments? I'd like to have my waning faith in sanity restored. Readers?

So, that's sorted. Now for the real message the lying liars are trying to obscure:

Why I continue to run

Of the many reasons, I will single out two; we know Hillary's Presidential timber, after all:

Justice:

I am running for all those women in their 90s who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

Electability:

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I'm standing up for them. I'm standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.

Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated - but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote - and we've been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.

WWTSBQ?

Because there's no "quit" in her.

That's one quality I want in a President. Don't you feel the same?

OFB PROPHYLACTIC Sure, it's a campaign speech. Sure, Hillary's -- gasp! -- running for office. And?

NOTE * Yes, when (many of) Obama’s supporters and our famously free press yammer -- the link is but one from the full-throated wankfest linked to over at memeorandum -- that Clinton hopes Obama is shot (like RFK) so she can win the nomination, that's the lie direct.

They are lying liars.

1. Watch the video. It’s in the sidebar. You’ll see. It’s not Rashomon at all. 2. Read this statement from RFK Jr. RFK Jr. 3. Read this statement from the Argus editorial board, who were actually in the room.

Worse, even worse than the lying, is that one faction of the Democratic Party has become what we used to oppose. Just as Obama smearing the Clintons as racist was "cold-blooded, calculated, manipulated and a revolting strategy," so too is this latest smear.

You know who used to pull that shit?

The Republicans, back in the day when they were perpetrating the coup against the Clintons that started with the impeachment saga and climaxed with the theft of the Presidency in Florida 2000. Ill means, ill ends. Back then, we had Drudge -> Free Republic -> FOX (as in the serifs wankfest, remember?). And today, we've got Drudge -> the blogosphere -> MSNBC. Only the faces have changed. Except some of the faces are new: Faces of people we thought we once knew and may even have trusted. Well done, all.

NOTE ** And not some kind of namby-pamby "I can understand how some Clinton supporters may feel yadda yadda yadda" post, either. That shit's way too soft. Some recognition, please, of the reality that the same tactics used by Republicans to assault the Clintons in the 90s are now being taken advantage of by Democrats. My fellow Unity Pony-supporting Democrats don't get to lift their noses in the air over this latest steaming load: They need to get down, right close, take a deep, deep whiff, and tell us all what they smell. Roses? Hey, fine. YMMV. On the other hand, they could start walking this back. (Clue stick: Obama's passive aggressive snark 24 hours after the damage is done does not make it. No fucking way. Do you think we are that stupid? Do you think we don't pay attention?) Walking this back would be one really good way to unite the Party. If the Obama faction really wants that, which I have come to doubt every since Donna Brazile and the "creative class" [cough] threw me under the bus.

From Media Matters, via the Make Them Accountable e-mail newsletter.

Another meme--propagated. And this one to the redoubtable Eric Boehlert:

So now the press tells candidates when to quit?

Er, yes.

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

Odd, isn't it?

No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses.

Indeed, a very strange leap has been made this year by lots of media commentators who argue against Clinton's candidacy. Rather than simply detailing her deficiencies and accentuating the strengths of her opponent, which political observers have done for generations, time and again we saw pundits take the unprecedented step of announcing not only that voters should not support Clinton, but that she should also quit. She should stop competing.

More often than not, the analysis ends up resembling poorly argued temper tantrums.

Many of which tantrums we've collected in this series for your reading pleasure, both from [cough] journalists and bloggers.

With Clinton, though, the press seems to have almost complete disregard for the 14 million voters who have backed her candidacy, as well as the idea that she is their representative in this race. Instead, they treat her entire campaign as some sort of vanity exercise in which voters do not exist.

And if pundits do acknowledge the Clinton voters, it's often with baffling ignorance, the way Time's Mark Halperin claimed many of Clinton's supporters would be "relieved" and "even delighted" if she dropped out. Really? Delighted? Halperin offered no proof to back up the peculiar notion.

But again, the point here worth stressing from a journalism perspective is that this is all brand new.

Bohlert then adduces Reagan (1976), Kennedy (1980), Hart (1984), Jackson (1988), Brown (1992), none of whom, when they continued their campaigns, were called upon by the press to quit.

If you look at Reagan and Kennedy and Hart and Jackson and Brown, those men all ran competitive races. But toward the end of the primary season it was clear most of them had no mathematical chance of winning the nomination. (Reagan was the exception.) Yet none of them was told collectively by the press to go home. Nor were they routinely depicted in the media as being self-absorbed.

Today, Clinton does have a chance to win. Yet she has been told by the press to go home and to get over herself.

It's unprecedented.

Why would it be, I wonder? Is there something about Hillary that's different from Ronald, Teddy, Gary, Jesse, and Jerry? What could it be?

'Tis a puzzlement!

And you know what? If we let them get away with it, they'll keep doing it.

Obviously, tonight's PA primary results are a tremendous win for Obama, who was able to hold Hillary's margin of victory well under 20%, while outspending her by a mere 2 to 1 (I’m not sure whether that figure includes the DVD mailers or not, though). Now that Hillary can finally do so with dignity, she should quit, for the sake of party unity and Donna Brazile's future employment prospects.

Oh, and speaking of single digits:

A

win

is

a

win

is

a

win.

And

that

goes

double

for

you

Lord Kos.

Hillary explains to that blithering idiot Michelle Norris on Nice Polite Republicans*:

"No, but you know - for example, why is the question directed at me?" she said. "I mean, neither of us has the number of delegates to win. It is a problem for both of us. And Senator Obama's supporters refuse to support a revote in Michigan, which I thought was rather odd for the Democratic Party to be against another vote. Senator Obama's supporters wanted to end this contest and short circuit it so that the votes of the people in the next upcoming contest wouldn't count because he has a slight lead. And it's by no means definitive. It would have been like calling the championship game last night with two minutes left to go because somebody was ahead. And that's not how it turned out."

Really, this is so obvious I can't imagine why it even needs to be said.

Well, cancel that. I know exactly why it needs to be said.

Unleash the haka!

NOTE * Looks like a hand-crafted transcript, in comments over at TalkLeft.

Be gentle with me, Chris!

It may not be popular to say this, but not only does it seem likely that Clinton will not drop out before June 3rd, but it also doesn't seem like a good idea for her to do so. Achieving the sort of closure necessary for a healed, unified party for the general election will require Clinton supporters feeling as though they were allowed to fight until there were no more realistic options remaining.

Because then they can lay back and enjoy it.

Mighty generous, the Boiz, mighty generous. Don't you think? So considerate of our feelings.

As I said: Re-enfranchise FL an MI, then we'll talk. This is about justice, not feelings. Because here's all and everything this latest haka is about:

The Boiz know that for Obama to have any legitimacy left at all, he's got to do well in the popular votes to come. So, they're trying to get Hillary voters to believe their votes don't matter because Obama's already won.* It's a mindfuck, pure and simple. So, if you'd even thought of paying attention to these guys, and whoever kidnapped Josh Marshall, don't, and they won't be able to create their own reality. Or yours.

Meanwhile, the great Digby has seen it all before. Set the Wayback Machine for December 2003:

Virtual Democracy

I’d like to officially congratulate Howard Dean for winning the nomination of the Democratic party for President of the United States. It was a hard fought campaign, one in which all of the issues were discussed and engaged in great depth with the internet party faithful. All the candidates had a chance to make their case on-line and the best man won. Now, with Al Gore’s dispensation, we can concentrate on beating George W. Bush.

First on the agenda is figuring out how we can expand our new formula of “winning without elections” to the race at large. If we want to take our country back and empower the grassroots again it is clear that our best strategy is to dispense with the unpredictability of democratic elections. As our recent primary taught us, this is the way we can most effectively avoid the unpleasantness of persuading the large numbers of people who aren’t sufficiently internet savvy to know what is good for them.

The best way to expand our new electionless democracy [FL, MI] would be to simply use the tried and true methods of internet activism, political endorsements, the infallible media pronouncements of “inevitability” and raising large amounts of cash. These are the proper measures of a candidate’s fitness for office and surely represent the will of the people better than the archaic practice of actual voting.

Sound familiar? Needless to say, that was parody. Although all of two days later, Ted Rall proved, if the Republicans already hadn't, that reality and parody are often not easy to distinguish:

CANCEL THE PRIMARIES

By Ted Rall

What if the other Democratic candidates came together at a joint press conference to announce that they were dropping out of the race to endorse Dean? If nothing else, cash-starved states would love it--the average primary costs taxpayers $7 million. More to the point, it would save Dean roughly $75 million--enough to close the money gap with Bush.

A more ephemeral but bigger benefit would be the message that a unified Democratic party could send to the electorate. Canceling the primaries would convey that Democrats are no longer a clumsy amalgamation of special interests. We're organized, it would say.

Cancelling elections to save money and send a message of unity is such a good idea.

It's the same old, same old, isn't it? This Digby in 2003, remember, and it seems that all that the passage of time has done is allow this crap to ferment. Same messianic enthusiasm, same demand that all but The Annointed One drop out, and the usual suspects doing the Unity haka, too. (Rall was pushing WWTSBQ from the dias at EschaCon, too. What a surprise.)

Pesky voters!

NOTE * The deeply bogus nature of Bower's argument is explained by BTD. There's no point even repeating it.

UPDATE Interesting article here. I like overlaying a topographical map on the counties... To reveal Appalachia! Bottom line:

Calling for [Hillary] to drop out before PA, PR, KY and WV vote would be akin to asking Obama to drop out because he was trailing with GA, AL, and MS yet to vote. It's cutting her off before literally her best states vote.

Yeah, and that couldn't be why they're doing it, could it? Nah.

I guess the Kid Oakland thing didn't work out, for some reason, so Lord Kos continues his 527 work to keep the popular vote for Hillary in PA, IN, and NC low by asking a front pager who's managed to retain some credibility over there to explain to these voters that the A listers, Howard Dean (sigh), and a bunch of Beltway Dem consultants and wannabes have come to the conclusion that there's really no need for them to vote--even though FDR won only on the fourth ballot, and this primary hasn't even run late, by historical standards. [UPDATE: See below the fold for many examples.]*

You’ve fought hard. But you’ve lost. Acknowledging that, accepting it, and acting graciously and selflessly on it right now would mean the Democrats – your supporters and the supporters of other candidates who have already left the contest – could unite behind Barack Obama without further delay.

Re-enfranchise Florida and Michigan. Then we'll talk.

Otherwise, Obama's nomination won't be legitimate. Deal?

NOTE * Hey, I'd put on my waders and comment over there, but when I asked them to delete my account, they took my ability to comment away--while still retaining my posts. Typical.

UPDATE Great post from Reclusive Leftist, which I'll sticky this post to draw attention to:

In a good but mis-titled article, Steven Stark comments on the deep weirdness of the current movement to get Hillary to quit:

It is, in truth, an argument virtually without precedent in modern political history, at least at this stage of such a close race. And while it does have its origins in an effort to preserve party unity, it also has its roots in an odd and vitriolic crusade to purge the Clintons and hand the nomination to a candidate who has yet, after all, to win a single large state’s primary (other than his own), let alone the nomination.

The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled “The Hillary Deathwatch”), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

In fact, until this year, it’s been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out — which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.

Okay, class, who can tell me what all those candidates had in common? Starts with a p…..

Readers?

Nah, couldn't be that. Why, the Boiz on the Blogs are progessives!

W-a-a-a-a-a-h!

Hillary says she'll "absolutely" support Obama in the general, and this is the thanks she gets from The Obama 527 Formerly Known As The Kos Community?

No, but seriously, I guess that means that half the Democratic Party should, well, just leave, since they aren't real Dems.

Can that possibly be a recipe for success in the general?

I'm guessing No, but why would my opinion matter? After all, I'm a racist. Clinging to my blog.

NOTE Thanks to TalkLeft.

Another dose from the Politico. I'm sure this one will go viral as fast as the last one did. Great headline, though:

Dem elite working for June solution

Well, that's sorted then. Barack as the choice of "the Dem elite." That's a talking point that's going to change a lot of minds....

NOTE Jeebus, didn't these guys get the memo? Obama said it's OK for her to keep running, so why push this stuff, anyhow? I mean, I would have thought the Unity Pony would frown on stuff like Obama being above the fray, and then sending his people out to make the same arguments, in private, that he's afraid to be ridiculed for making in public. Pesky voters!

Apparently Big Media Matt didn't get the memo:

One thing to note about Hillary Clinton's Florida and Michigan strategy is the utter selfishness of it. Her best shot at getting her way on this issue is to keep observing, in a meta kind of way, that if the DNC disses Florida and Michigan by not seating their delegates, that this could hurt Democratic fortunes in Florida and Michigan in November.

Yeah, real "meta." Haw. Like that would even happen. Why would any voter, let alone a Floridian, be sensitive about having their vote counted?

There are, however, any number of solutions to this problem. One, if Clinton dropped out and endorsed Obama, the delegates could be seated [with] no problem. Two, 50-50 delegations could be seated without controversy, again removing the concern about MI and FL lacking representation. Three, leaders of the Democratic Party from all factions could reiterate that everybody knew the rules going in and the voters of Michigan and Florida have nobody to blame but their own state party leaders for creating this situation.

Pesky voters! They don't want to give in to bitterness and divisiveness and "blame their own state party leaders."* They want their votes to count! Why don't they smarten up and listen to The Boiz?

The Times today:

As supporters of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois try gingerly — and, lately, not so gingerly — to plant the idea that the presidential nominating season has run its course and the time has come to declare a winner, there is at least one obstacle. The Democratic voters of Indiana and beyond, who have been little more than bystanders through four decades of presidential primaries, seem to be in no hurry for this campaign to end.

At least not before their ballots are cast.

And that has become a central argument for Mrs. Clinton as she implores voters to lend her candidacy a lifeline. In rally after rally in Indiana and North Carolina last week, voters booed and jeered when she mentioned that some Democratic leaders and unfriendly pundits believe she should leave the race.

“There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this primary, we just ought to shut it down,” Mrs. Clinton told a few thousand people who had gathered in Mishawaka, where a giant “Hoosiers for Hillary” sign served as a backdrop.

“No!” boomed the crowd.

Pesky voters! Don't they realize that every time they make Obama feel that campaigning is like a "Bataan Death March" a kitten dies?

If hopes are diminishing among some supporters of Mrs. Clinton — privately, many concede they do not see a clear mathematical path to winning the nomination — [as if there could be!] that word has yet to reach the voters here who filled gymnasium after gymnasium on her two-day trip through Indiana. The mood of the rallies and town meetings was far from the grim picture portrayed in the endless whirl of political chatter on cable television.

Who knew?

Roberta Weaver drove 90 miles to Fort Wayne from Kokomo and waited outside in 40-degree weather for nearly five hours to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Clinton as she walked into a diner for a discussion about the economy. When Ms. Weaver heard a reporter asking a few folks in the crowd about the outlook for the senator’s candidacy, she jumped in with a scolding.

“No way, no way should she get out of the race,” said Ms. Weaver, a 70-year-old retired nurse. “I think people are deceiving themselves if they think that she can’t win this. She’s stronger and her support is much stronger than what many people think.”

Not long ago, in the days leading up to the primaries in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas, it was hardly uncommon to come across Democrats attending Clinton campaign events out of what they described as a sense of nostalgia, with the unspoken worry that time could be running out to see her.

But with the contest in Pennsylvania more than three weeks away, followed two weeks later by Indiana and North Carolina, much of that skeptical talk has been replaced by an enthusiasm for voters to have their voices heard in the historic campaign, whether they support Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

The arrogance of it! Voters wanting their voices heard!

You know, it should be apparent by now that Obama has a real hard time closing a deal. (Maybe that accounts for his thin legislative record?) I think he should admit the inevitable, and drop out, because there's no clear mathematical path to the nomination for him. Obama's got a bright future in the Senate, or maybe even as Attorney General. Or, with the whole law school thing, on the Supreme Court.....

NOTE This is the first time I've heard "blame your state party" advocated as a remedy for disenfranchisement. Truly, the Unity Pony is magic!

UPDATE Mr. Stubble's on the case, fobbing it all off on a reader, as usual.

Matt Yglesias:

[T]he main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race.

New England Patriots: The only obstacle to the successful resolution of the New York Giants situation is that the game is not yet over.

If she drops out and endorses Obama on May 7 or shortly thereafter, it'll be easy for Michigan and Florida to be "forgiven" in late May and allowed to fully participate in a rubber stamp convention in exchange for promising to never do it again.

Wow.

Forgiven. I like that.

I'm sure that the voters of Florida and Michigan will "forgive" the Democrats in November for not counting their votes. After all, how often does that happen?

David Brooks:

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

That really puts the "come" into "you've come a long way baby," doesn't it?

If your husband spooges on another woman's dress, the gentlemen of the media establishment are thoughtful enough to constantly remind you that it's your fault. Who said chivalry was dead?

[Welcome, Talk Left readers!]

Great one from M.Y. After quoting Mark Halperin without irony, we get this, also without irony:

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc. But people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

Broder-esque, totally. The wise men need to sit Hillary down and explain-the-way-things work to Hillary, because dammit, those pesky voters keep voting for her.

Is it something-in-the-water down there?

NOTE Heh. It's been a long time since I've able to do snark with hyphens!

Yawn.

Campaigning and winning! So divisive!

My goodness, everybody who is anybody on the A-List* is teabagging Politico these days! The process is funny to watch, but I do mute the sound. It's all an overly transparent attempt to keep the popular vote down in the next big states that Hillary's going to win, because, these days, unity, change, and transformation all mean disenfranchising voters. How fast dreams die! Today, BooMan auditions at The Obama 527 Formerly Known As The Kos Community:

My theory on the campaign is that the Clintons cannot limp all the way to April 22nd when the logic/narrative puts them strictly in the role of party wreckers. The poison that will eventually erode Clinton's poll advantage is the cold hard truth that she cannot win a brokered convention. But, before that poison can work its way through the body electorate, the media must begin reporting the truth.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! [Reach me that bucket, wouldja, hon?] But you've always got to look at the detail. We learned that under Bush and, sadly, the lesson still holds:

This started yesterday when Ben Smith of The Politico reported [sic] that members of Clinton's staff privately acknowledge that she has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

Yeah, "privately" in this case means "single sourced" and anonymous. Gosh, seems like only yesterday when the famously self-correcting blogosphere had a media critique, and everything. Good times...

And, oh yeah, Mark Halperin and MoDo are solidly with Ben Smith and future Village skintern Boo on this. Sure, MoDo's got some insider gossip about the automatic delegates, but really, why would anybody trust a word that she says? But when the Boiz want to cut their anxiety level by forming a unity circle and enjoying a noisy haka together, any excuse will do.

Alert reader BDBlue got a little pledge drive going. Might as well introduce a little more feedback into the system, eh?

NOTE Incidentally, here's the Politico quote:

One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

Sadly, and I'm sure mistakenly, Boo writes "members of Clinton's staff," when in fact Smith carefully says "one ... Clinton advisor" and other "operatives" who could be from any campaign, or anywhere. Heck, Lord Kos himself might as well be an operative at this point, so it could be him. That would be really meta and circular and self-referential, a Kos to Smith to Boo on Kos bank shot, in that cute way the Village has of being the Village. I'm sure it's not true, but it's fun to think about, and with all the brand destruction that's going on these days, who knows?

NOTE * Of course, I exempt Lord Eschaton from the A-List because he's kept his sanity and doesn't, well, remind me of what "A" really stands for. And hey, just joking with the skintern and audition thing. Just a little sour grapes after TX and OH. Oh, wait....

Today we received a link from our friend, BooMan, who says of us:

...the dead-enders don't seem to have basic reading comprehension skills. For example, if there is a poll that shows that 28% of Clinton supporters will switch over to McCain rather than vote for Barack Obama, that poll doesn't say anything about whether Clinton's supporters genuinely like her or have been taken into Mark Penn's borg and no longer have free will.

What's that rule, CD, about not criticizing another blogger? It escapes me at this moment.

Digby writes:

One of the things I find most annoying about the Obama team is its need to take premature victory laps and clumsily try to create a phony Rovian bandwagon effect. I've been writing about it since the campaign.

Really. How about during the campaign?

If WWTSBQ wasn't a premature victory lap by the loser of all the big states, the loser of the popular vote, but the winner in TX caucus fraud and the Rules and ByLaws Committee, then I don't know my premature victory laps.

Those who don't learn from history...

Here is how Kevin Drum disappeared from my blogroll and $10 more went to HRC's campaign:

"Yeah, I'm pretty much at the same place. There are already an awful lot of reasons for me not to bother defending Hillary even tepidly, and I hardly need another one. She's been voted off the island. It's time for her to go."

Frenchdoc
The Global Sociology Blog

From a piece titled "No Hillary Clinton endgame — Democratic hopeful soldiers on despite seemingly hopeless situation":

Last week, even as the Wright episode was being ceaselessly rehashed, Clinton followed John McCain in proposing a suspension of the federal gasoline tax for the summer. The proposal was aptly described by Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter as “the most irresponsible policy idea of the year.” As Clinton and McCain surely know, a gas-tax holiday would do nothing to address America’s genuine energy problems. It also would not alleviate the country’s economic problems. What it would do is encourage oil consumption—just about the last thing we need. Obama rejected the idea. Clinton immediately began running ads denouncing him for doing so.

I would have thought the most irresponsible idea was telling a country ready — at long last — to repudiate the Reagan Revolution and save its children, treasure, environment, and good name...

Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

Strangely, I would have thought giving a little economic respite to the poor, working poor, and middle class by reawakening the nation's appetite for putting some of our economic burden onto the pampered robber barons was a better idea than that.

But that's just me.

Donald Sutherland is suffering!

Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?

Too much democracy for ya, Don? I know that can be hard to swallow.

Maybe we can get Fr. Pfleger to shed a few tears for you.

"Obama brings us unity that you just seem to kill."

It's pretty fucking sad when Big Boi Josh Mr. Stubble starts quoting Drudge's BFF, the Politico, as an authoritative source, or, indeed, as doing "reporting" at all. Because Politico is always wrong about everything.

Hey, remember when we had the self-correcting blogosphere, and a media critique, and everything?

But that's s-o-o-o-o-o-o 2007!

Oliver Willis (April 19, 2007)

The Politico should really just be called out for what it is: an outlet for right-wing nonsense to attack Democratic pols. A lot of the people who write for Politico think that the era of "journalism" from '91-present where the press exists to slam Democratic politicians (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Clinton) and suck up to Republican ones is the normal state of things, and if it means servicing Massah Drudge they're more than happy to do it.

But it isn't real journalism in any sense of the word.

Crooks and Liars:

OK, so we all know Drudge's new BFF is the Politico. And we know that Drudge is a GOP smear machine,,,Aren't you thinking what I'm thinking? Greenwald says they are joined at the hip…

Media Matters has the rundown…All hail "Drudgico"…

Glenn Greenwald

The new online political magazine, The Politico, is a pernicious new presence in our media landscape. As I noted the other day, it really is nothing more than the Drudge Report dressed up with the trappings of mainstream media credibility. Today, Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News writes on his blog about what is merely the latest episode (of many) proving how closely coordinated The Politico is with The Drudge Report. It is not hyperbole to say that the former is all but an arm of the latter.

Good times...

Why, I'm so old I remember when I used to go to TPM for the news!

Tell me again why it's any better to have the Boiz on the Blogs pick my candidate for me than the rest of our famously free press?

UPDATE eRiposte does the math. Two conclusions: First, in the popular vote, Clinton's doing just fine, especially if you, like, count all the votes and don't disenfranchise FL and MI. Second, the caucus system is just wildly undemocratic: In both TX and WA, the caucus system and the results of a genuine, secret ballot election are very different, and while Hillary wins the genuine election, Obama takes the caucuses. Of course, an Obama nomination won't disenfranchise the large states that Obama can't win or didn't deign to compete in, no siree.

UPDATE Boi Josh doesn't get it. He opines:

et this afternoon, just before going to a meeting, I posted a link to The Politico article on Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the nomination and expressed my agreement with it. When I returned I fully expected an avalanche of emails from Hillary supporters. But when I did return, nothing, or nearly so. Even the few we did get barely seemed to have their heart in it.

That's not it. We know you're so deep in the tank there's no point writing.

HRC:

“There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to come,” Clinton told reporters Friday. “This is a very close race and clearly I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted.”

What does she think this is, a democracy!? The campaign is over when Kos says it's over.

Mr. Stubble cherry picks another letter. "Jessy Jackson"... Ha ha! Teh funny! Why doesn't that stupid bitch drop out?

Stop writing the man, people! It's useless.

NOTE Here's the first cherry-picked letter Full of "!!!"s LOL! Ha ha! Teh funny!

UPDATE Mr. Stubble adds a clarifying note:

[S]ometimes I think it's worthwhile to know what folks on the fringes are thinking, especially when the fringes are growing in toward the center.

Translation: Yeah, I cherry-picked it. And?

Commendable understatement from ABC's Jake Tapper:

I'd posit at the very least that it's not keeping with Obama's lofty campaign rhetoric to compare Clinton's tenacity to psychosis.

Welcome aboard, Jake! But we've been dealing with this shit for months!

Via Shakespeare's Sister, see the Hillary Sexism Watch. She's up to 90 (ninety). Drop in the bucket, I'd say -- I don't think she's even tracking OFB material online. Like this, for example, from very our own local Obama canvasser:

The Wellesley girl Hillary in Carhartts, slinging back shots of Crown Royal, when she’s never even fueled up a car and can’t figure out how to get coffee out of a gas station coffee machine.

Sure, mercg8's not saying Hillary's psychotic, but saying she's never fueled up a car? Why? Because girls don't?

NOTE Zuzu! Nice to see you around here. Can you get Shakes to put the Watch on a separate page of its own? So we can link to it?

Ohio. Texas. Indiana. Pennsylvania.
Obama LOST THEM ALL.
Why is he still in the race?

Times:

Obama Donors Aren’t Rushing to Aid Clinton
A prominent donor to Senator Barack Obama recently sent an e-mail plea to other supporters, asking them — for the sake of Democratic unity — to write checks to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to help retire her $23 million in campaign debt.

Some of the replies are unprintable, given the coarse language, the donor said.

Unprintable language about America's first female presidential candidate from Obama supporters? Gosh, I'm shocked, and I just can't imagine what the nature of the language could possibly be; though you'd think that the language would be part of "all the news," and therefore "fit to print," eh? Or not.

Mr. Obama has asked his top donors to help raise money for her debt, and so far they have come up with less than $100,000 (though more in pledges), Clinton campaign officials said — a “paltry sum,” in the words of one.

Several Obama donors said in interviews that they were balking at Mr. Obama’s call for help because they believed Mrs. Clinton accumulated most of her debts after she had lost any mathematical chance [that tired old talking point] of winning the nomination and was hanging on only in hopes of an Obama collapse.

Or possibly winning the popular vote, which she did. Or maybe getting justice from the RBC on FL and MI, which she didn't.

But yeah, why wouldn't that stupid bitch quit?

Of course, all this is entirely natural. Since the Obama Movement wishes to purge Clinton, and all her supporters, from their party, there's no real reason for them to help her out. Eh? After all, she, and they, have nowhere else to go.

So shut the fuck up and send Obama more money! He needs it!

NOTE Via Jeralyn.