For Hillary, the writing is on the wall. Just the facts:

[ProSense]

Clinton's Real Choice

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008; Page A17

Chill out.

More specifically: "We're going to win this election, if we just chill out and let everybody have their say."

Thus, Bill Clinton's advice to Democrats who are gnashing their collective teeth over whether the extended struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will cause their party to lose an election it once seemed certain to win.

One person who took Clinton's advice was Obama, who went out of his way last weekend to defend his opponent's right to stay in the contest. That was a shrewd move, since the Clinton campaign is gifted at turning any effort to push her out into (1) a form of sexism, (2) a fiendish plot against her by Washington "insiders" and (3) a way of raising lots of money online.

In any event, the argument about ending the race now is miscast...

<...>

For the long run, it is neither sexism nor insiderism to say that unless she sweeps in Pennsylvania and also in primaries in places such as Indiana and North Carolina, the decision to end the race by dropping out will fall upon Clinton.

But there is a more immediate question facing her: As long as she is in the race, how will Clinton choose to win? The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama but what it is doing to her.

more

Last night, the Obama campaign proclaimed -- after Mississippi certified the results of its primary earlier this month, 62.51% for Obama to 37.49% for Clinton -- that Obama had a net gain of seven delegates in the states (20-13) versus five (19-14).

And of those nine remaining Texas delegates, “Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party's national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.”

The Politico asked a delegate expert to project the makeup of the credentials committee, which is based on delegates earned (big states first), as well as 25 members appointed by Dean. There's little change Clinton will control a majority but Obama may only control a very NARROW majority since, for instance, a candidates victory in a large state gets a little more weight in this allocation process than simply the candidate who wins the most delegates overall.

On some in the Democratic Party calling for Clinton to drop out… "My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama's supporters want to end this race because they don't want people to keep voting," Clinton told a local TV station in Billings, Mont. "That's just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don't you?” The Obama campaign rejected the charge, dismissing Clinton's criticism as "completely laughable."

more

Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary

Pennsylvania: Clinton 47% Obama 42%

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in the Pennsylvania Primary is shrinking.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Clinton leading Barack Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March.

Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.

Obama recently received a key endorsement from Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey and has also spent more on television ads than Clinton. If Obama is able to pull off an upset in the Keystone State, it would effectively end the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Obama currently leads Clinton nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, while an Obama victory could end the nomination battle, Clinton remains ahead in the state and recently demonstrated her ability to finish strong in the Ohio and Texas Primaries.

<...>

Forty-seven percent (47%) say they have followed news stories Very Closely about Clinton’s Bosnia misstatements. Another 27% have followed those stories Somewhat Closely. Overall, 19% consider that issue to be Very Important in their voting decision. That figure includes 6% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama voters. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Pennsylvania voters say that most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments. Only 12% disagree.

more

(emphasis added)

Exclusive Poll: Clinton's Lead Shrinks In Pa.

Clinton Leads By 12 Points, Survey Finds

POSTED: 7:35 am EDT April 1, 2008
UPDATED: 8:35 am EDT April 1, 2008

If the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania were held Tuesday, April 1, Hillary Clinton would defeat Barack Obama by 12 percentage points, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for NBC 10 and three other Pennsylvania TV stations across the state.

However, the poll showed Obama gaining ground in the Keystone State, particularly in cities like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and among older voters, men and conservative Democrats.

Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released three weeks ago, Clinton is down two points and Obama is up five, with Clinton's previous 19-point lead cut to 12, the survey found.

The movement in support came almost entirely from men, according to the survey results. Clinton had led by five points but now trails by seven -- a 12-point swing to Obama.

To see this illustrated, go to SurveyUSA's exclusive interactive tracking graph here.

Among women, Clinton's lead remains largely unchanged. Among voters ages 50 and older, Clinton had led by 26 points and now leads by 22. Among voters under 50, Clinton had led by 12 points but now leads by two, a 10-point swing to Obama.

In southeast Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia and makes up 43 percent of likely Democratic voters, the candidates have traded places: Clinton had been up two points but is now down three. In southwest Pennsylvania, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton had led by 31, but now is at 17, a 14-point swing to Obama.

more

Hillary-Backing Congressman: "I Will Be Stunned" If Obama Isn't The Next President

By Eric Kleefeld - April 1, 2008, 9:33AM
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), who is supporting Hillary Clinton, went seriously off-message in an interview with Canadian public radio.

"If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president," Cleaver said. "I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States."

[slinkerwink]

1. kick

[Saturday]

2. You don't stop a baseball game in the 7th inning.

Why do you want voters in PA etc to not have a say in this primary?

[JayFredMuggs]

6. You assume we don't?

Have you seen any of us say we want her out?

She's got 10 more times at bat before the game is over.

Obama (and Hillary) says she can stay in as long as she wants, that's the only message that matters

[ProSense]

8. How the hell did you come to that conclusion from the OP?

More distracting BS!

[ekwhite]

19. I believe Obama has said he wants Clinton to stay in the race

I want Pennsylvania to vote, and the rest of the states. What I don't want is a nasty convention fight, which Clinton seems to be threatening.

[Hepburn]

43. Let me put it to you real simply:

Because the game is OVER. It is NOT a tie...there is NO way for Hillary to get the nomination.

[UALRBSofL]

3. The facts are this

Prosense I have never seen a post where you posted truthful facts. And so I'm not gonna start trusting you now.

[babylonsister]

5. That's just nasty; unlike so many on here, ProSense only posts

facts with links to back her up. Your reality may not accept it, but don't blame that on the OP. :eyes:

[mkultra]

7. interesting

So clue me in cus this all seems cited.

[SoonerPride]

9. Since Gravel has left the Democratic party, would you please remove your sig pic of that traitor?

Thanks.

[ProSense]

10. Who gives a shit? Got a link to back up your bullshit claim? n/t

[ProSense]

11. And another thing:

What the hell does trusting me have to do with the information in the OP?

Idiocy!

[JayFredMuggs]

4. Lots of juicy stuff here!

Thanks for this !

[ProSense]

12. Another graphic of Obama cutting into Hillary's lead in PA:

[jobycom]

13. Probably, but you're talking numbers, and this race won't be decided by numbers, either way.

The race will come down to how the superdelegates break. Right now Obama (who, as I'm sure you're sophisticated enough to understand, may publicly say Clinton should stay in the race, but is feeding the "Hillary must drop out" fervor behind the scenes) has the meme on his side. The meme is that the supers should vote for the candidate that the people have chosen, and pledged delegates are being used to make that candidate look like Obama.

But Obama's lead is ill-gained, or rather, not gained by winning the popular vote. His edge in caucus states is disproportionate to his performance in primary states. Caucuses do no measure the will of the voters. As Washington state's legislature claimed in the early 90s, caucuses are discriminatory against the elderly, those who work late or have evening jobs, and anyone else who can't arrive at a caucus site in a fairly narrow window of time, stand around for many hours before voting. Also, caucuses are not secret ballots, bringing all kinds of pressures into play (that's why we have secret ballots).

Looking at Texas and Washington--the two states that have both a primary and a caucus (Washington's primary doesn't count for the Demcoratic party), you can see a huge disparity between the way the people vote, and the way the caucuses go. Clinton won the Texas vote 51-46, but lost the caucus by close to twenty points. She lost Washington's primary by five points (46-51), but lost their caucus by 37% (68-31).

Obviously, the will of the voters is not expressed well in the primary season. As long as Obama can keep control of his meme, though, it doesn't really matter. The supers will go with what he says, and maybe put him over the top.

But if something changes--say, Clinton wins PA big, and then goes on to strongly win the rest of the primaries--Obama's star may fade, and then his meme may fail. Then Clinton has time to push the "Caucuses do not represent the voters, I've won more of the popular vote than him." Or whatever. If the mood has changed, then the supers will have an excuse to back her.

Not saying it will happen, just that that's her strategy, and there is no done deal yet. She can still win, if Obama stumbles, or she surges. I don't think it's likely--the media is Goring Clinton and Reaganing Obama, so I don't see how anyone's opinions will change dramatically. Obama is likely to be the nominee. But it's not as certain as the numbers make it seem.

And just for full disclosure, I think the caucus system is unfair, just as Obama supporters think the superdelegates are unfair, but it is the system. I'm not claiming it's illegitimate, just analyzing its quirks. The winner is the winner.

[ProSense]

16. "But Obama's lead is ill-gained, or rather, not gained by winning the popular vote. " Huh?

Obama leads in the popular vote based only on primaries, and he has won 15 primaries to Hillary's 12.

[jobycom]

21. So? If she leads i primary victories and the popular vote by the end...

Will you say she deserves it?

I wasn't trying to say she was in the lead, just that a lot of Obama's lead in delegates is disproportionate to the popular vote. And if primaries were held in the states where he won caucuses, would he have won the primaries?

Again, it's not a numbers game at this point. There's no way to reconstruct what would have happened in a popular vote.

[ProSense]

23. Your comment is hypothetical and based on spin:

I wasn't trying to say she was in the lead, just that a lot of Obama's lead in delegates is disproportionate to the popular vote. And if primaries were held in the states where he won caucuses, would he have won the primaries?

First, the rules: The contest for the nomination is based on delegates.

Second, Obama has won more primaries and more states than Hillary so why would you assume he would lose?

Third, there is no scenario short of a 70%-80% win in PA and significan wins in other states that would give Hillary the popular vote lead.

The fact is that in a best case scenario she will still be behind by more than 330,000 votes in June.

[jobycom]

28. Your comment is hypothetical and based on spin.

It's not, but neither is mine.

I showed you the facts I used. I showed you one state specifically where Obama won a caucus but lost the primary, held on the same day, and another where Obama barely edged Clinton in a primary but won the caucus by over thirty points. There's nothing hypothetical about that. It's not hypothetical to state, providing evidence, that caucuses do not represent the popular vote. There's no reason to believe that Obama would have won all those caucus states if they had held primaries instead, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Obama has roughly a two to one split in caucuses, and nowhere near that split in most primary states.

My point was objective, spinless, and quite understood the rules--even if your snarky, Obama-esque comments try to imply otherwise. I even concluded Obama would likely win and Clinton's chance was a long shot. What's "spinning" about that?

[ProSense]

29. No, see point one. Both Hillary and Obama knew what the nomination process was like going in.

The rules (primary and caucus, delegates awarded based on percentages, etc.) have been in place for years. Modified rules have been in place for months.

You can claim that hating the system is relevant to the results, but it's hypothetical and spin in relation to how the contests were fought.

Different rules, different circumstances, different results.

Taking a hypothetical situation and applying to the real results is silly.

That's like Hillary's camp taking the electoral vote and trying to apply it in a delegate battle.

[jobycom]

31. See, this is exactly what Obama does, and exactly why I despise him.

You are claiming I said things I didn't say so that I can't argue against you. It's the exact dirty crap he pulled against Clinton, exactly why he reminds me of Reagan, and exactly why I will have the hardest time voting for him I've ever had voting for a candidate.

I did NOT say anything that you are saying I said. I said quite plainly that the rules were the rules. My ENTIRE point was that the superdelegates are part of the rules, and if Clinton can get them to vote for her through whatever means, then she will win. The rest of my point was nothing more than an explanation of how she might do it, and an objective analysis of caucuses versus primaries.

But just like Obama, you've pretended to (or maybe even really did) misunderstand, and then misrepresented what I said to make it look like I launched a partisan attack against Obama. EXACTLY the way Obama has done.

Clinton can still win. She probably won't, but she still can. And it will be within the rules. Those same rules you keep trying to pretend I misunderstand. That's my point. Take it or leave it, I don't care, but that was my point. All spin and hypotheticals were supplied by you.

[ProSense]

32. "But Obama's lead is ill-gained, or rather, not gained by winning the popular vote. "

No that's what Hillary's camp does. You clearly said "ill-gained."

Under the actual rules, they were not.

[TheDoorbellRang]

17. But caucusing is easy!

Just to remind ourselves how far caucuses have fallen in esteem, here's a video the Hillary campaign put out last November:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLxtP2UhSLY

[jobycom]

22. Surely you realize the difference between trying to work the system and

believing the system is fair?

[TheDoorbellRang]

25. I would have been a lot more sympathetic to the cries of "It's not fair!"

If they had been made before the Iowa caucus. No one seems to have had a problem with caucuses for decades, but suddenly this election cycle they are evil and must be destroyed.

[jobycom]

30. There are always complaints about caucuses. That's not new.

Just because you've never heard them before doesn't mean they weren't out there. Most primaries are over long before now, so the complaints don't matter much, and winning candidates aren't going to waste resources on meaningless arguments. Losing candidates are ignored and their arguments labeled "sour grapes."

In the late 80s Washington passed legislation to hold a statewide primary. Here's their explanation: The…presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily
restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm,
women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and
therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in
our democratic system of government.

This is nothing new. The Clintons can oppose the system, but until it changes, they still have to play it.

[ProSense]

14. Yo, Adrian! Clinton Has a New Theme Song

April 1, 2008, 11:04 am

Yo, Adrian! Clinton Has a New Theme Song

By Katharine Q. Seelye

PHILADELPHIA — Move over, Celine Dion. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a brand new theme song, and it could knock you sideways.

“Rocky,” anthem of the underdog, and a Philly favorite to boot, rose up on the sound system Monday night at a Clinton rally in nearby Fairless Hills, Pa. Today, Mrs. Clinton has grabbed on to Rocky’s story as her own, telling labor leaders here that like him, she’s not a quitter.

“Let me tell you something,” she said in remarks prepared for delivery later this morning to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.”

She is referring, of course, to the calls for her to leave the ring. Senator Barack Obama has won more delegates, has more overall popular votes and has won more states. Some of his top supporters, notably Senator Patrick Leahy, have said Mrs. Clinton should concede and leave the stage before things get too ugly, that she has no way to win.

Mr. Obama himself has said she should stay in as long as she wants. But she is painting the picture otherwise, because he’s the one she’s running against.

more

Um….Senator? Rocky lost.

[shellgame26]

15. Hillary can't drop out

She is practically being blackmailed by her uberdonors and they are expecting a return on their investment. That's what happens when you're pegged as the "inevitable" nominee, much like the "unsinkable" titanic.

[ProSense]

38. Well, their threats didn't go over well.

Welcome shellgame26.

[ekwhite]

18. Very nice presentation of the facts N/T

[liberaldem4ever]

20. Great info-Thanks for posting

K&R

[beachmom]

24. Hillary has only two choices: drop out or continue to up the ante

That is why I find myself no longer worked up about her latest ploys. Josh Marshall said it best:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186588.php

So when people have asked me whether I think Hillary should drop out I've said I don't think she's under any obligation to do so but that I do think, with her odds now this long, she should not be running a campaign that seems to go out of its way not simply to compete but to damage the likely nominee as a general election candidate and attempt to discredit the nomination process itself.

But when I was writing out my take on her interview over the weekend with Post, I realized that I hadn't made clear enough in what I'd written, or even really in my own head, how much the two things are really combined.

As I said in that post, I don't think Hillary's claim that she's going to stay in the race through the convention in Denver is really about Denver, or staying through August or even till June. It's about keeping her troops motivated and confident so that she can keep in the game through April and May.

And here I think we see the pattern. Hillary doesn't want to run for president in 2nd or 3rd gear. It's beneath her dignity. And I don't mean that sarcastically. It really is. She's a powerful United States senator, former First Lady, etc. She wants to win. And if she's still in it she wants to run full bore with the money you need to run a serious campaign, the crowds, poll numbers, etc. She's not some Huckabee figure who's going to hang around with little chance of winning

It really is all or nothing. You've got to convince your supporters, donors and to at least some degree the media that you're really in it, and in it with a shot. Otherwise you face the classic problem of a cascade failure. Poor fundraising generates bad press stories, which depress turnout at rallies, which create more bad press stories and eventually no press stories, etc. It's no different from the precarious position any campaign faces when the odds aren't looking good.

And so we have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president. ...

I think there are a lot of people who would actually like to see the race play out as long as neither candidate is going out of their way to make their opponent unviable in the general. But thinking over what I've said above, I'm just not sure how realistic that is.

In order to stay in, she has to go nastier and become more ruthless for her survival. Otherwise, it is curtains for her. This is why calls for her to withdraw are not as from left field as people think. She can't simply run a positive campaign about herself and not denigrate Obama, while remaining viable.

So Hillary will continue to do and say outrageous things; it is up to the Obama campaign to figure out a strategy to deal with it, while staying respectful (so as to woo Hillary voters for the General Election).

[ProSense]

27. That's true. There is another down side to the viciousness:

Any distortion thrown out by Hillary that's not addressed or allowed to linger will be brought up in the GE. In fact, for voters, including Democrats and independents, who maybe catching only media snippets of these distortions, it becomes harder to convince them the longer the distortion remains out there.

Obama has done an excellent job of responding.

It's the complaint I have with Factcheck.org trying to neutralize Obama's position on things like not accepting PAC of lobbyists money. This distortion is fodder for Republicans.

[beachmom]

33. I agree, but it is what it is. She either drops out or continues to damage Obama.

That is all she has left. Kinda sucks, but given her supporters' response to my post about this, it seems her fans think it's fine because she is the only one for them; no one else exists. That is beyond my understanding, especially in a democracy, where there is ALWAYS someone else.

[Cheap_Trick]

26. the FACTS are to hillbots

as sunshine is to a vampire...

[ClayZ]

34. K and R

[ProSense]

35. The lie becomes part of Hillary's fact check

Obama Campaign Calling For End Of Primary Election

[ProSense]

36. More writing on the wall

When the focus of the campaign becomes campaigning

Posted April 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Looking over the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s pitch this week, I can’t help but think she’s off message. Today in Philadelphia, for example, Clinton is emphasizing the need to keep the presidential campaign going.

<...>

There’s obviously a common thread here. It seems as if the Clinton strategy is to focus the campaign on campaigning. Given the microphone, Clinton is using it to talk about how important it is that she keep getting the microphone.

It’s the wrong message at the wrong time.

Put aside, for a moment, whether it helps or hurts the Democratic Party to have the race continue. Reasonable people can draw different conclusions about this, and Clinton is making a perfectly good case that she deserves to keep on fighting, regardless of the hurdles.

That’s not what this is about. What, exactly, is the point of keeping the race going? In theory, for Clinton and her supporters, it’s about giving voters more time to see and hear what the candidates have to offer, and giving voters in eight states and two territories more time to weigh in with their preferences.

Clinton has made it clear she’s not going anywhere anytime soon, which Democrats can interpret as either good news or bad. But the point here is what Clinton chooses to do on the campaign trail now that she’s vowed to stay on it. So far, the emphasis the past several days has been on the importance of keeping the nomination fight going, and criticizing Obama supporters for wanting to wrap things up.

But that’s not a compelling campaign pitch; in fact, it’s hardly a pitch at all. There’s no reason to keep talking about why the race should continue; the race is continuing by virtue of Clinton’s ongoing efforts.

Reporters and campaign junkies enjoy the inside-pool and horserace analysis, but on the list of voters’ top concerns, the debate over whether the Democrats’ nomination fight should in April, June, or August is of no consequence.

Clinton has a compelling policy message, but if all we hear is a campaign based on the need to continue campaigning, the race might as well end. It will have passed the point of vapidity.

Clinton pleads for time

[ProSense]

37. If this is any indication, the relationship between education and truth could not be more clear

Teachers Union Drops Over $300,000 On Pennsylvania Radio Ad For Hillary

At this point, they need a miracle to reverse that trend.

[ProSense]

39. More signs of trouble for Hillary

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary PPP (D) Clinton 43, Obama 45 Obama +2

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 50, Obama 41 Clinton +9 (down from 12

link


RCP Average 03/24 - 04/01 - 48.3 42.3 Clinton +6.0 (down from 14)

link

[ProSense]

40. Why Obama Can Win Pennsylvania

Why Obama Can Win Pennsylvania

[ProSense]

41. Hints from Jimmy Carter and Jon Corzine

Jimmy Carter Drops Strong Hint for Obama:

“My children and their spouses are pro- Obama. My grandchildren are also pro- Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess….”

Corzine's vote

[myrna minx]

42. How did I miss this yesterday?

:kick:

[Scurrilous]

44. Kick

:kick:

[ProSense]

45. John Baer: Obama could actually win this thing (the Pa. primary)

John Baer: Obama could actually win this thing (the Pa. primary)

BARACK OBAMA had a pretty good week in Pennsylvania.

In a state that pollsters and analysts call tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, Obama is seriously challenging the fit.

So much so, some wonder if an unraveling's in the offing.

One could make a case.

The average of multiple new polls, including one putting him slightly ahead, shows he has trimmed a large Clinton lead - 20 points in January, 16 last month - down to single digits, at 5.4.

His campaign yesterday announced that it raised $40 million in March amid persistent chatter that Hillary's running low and reports that she raised just half that.

More money means more TV, and Obama's clearly clubbing Clinton.

Last week alone, he spent $2.2 million on Pa. TV ads, compared with her $627,000.

Then he waged a ground war.

He crisscrossed the state on a bus tour with stops in places that should be hers or the GOP's.

In the process, he picked up six days of free and almost entirely positive press.

He went to blue-collar Johnstown, home of big-name Hillary backer U.S. Rep. John Murtha.

He went to hardscrabble Scranton, birth and burial place of Hillary's father.

He went to rural Lancaster County, home of the state's most conservative Republican voters.

more