Hillary Loses Another Superdelegate

First it was Bill Gwatney, Arkansas Dem Party Chairman, and now Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California who won't be able to join the cast of thousands in Denver. She's dealing with a cast of her own:

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was co-hosting an annual environmental summit in Lake Tahoe, broke her ankle Friday when she slipped and fell while walking with Rep. Ellen Tauscher.

“My doctor has advised me not to travel in the short-term, and so, regretfully, I am unable to attend what will surely be an historic convention in Denver,” Feinstein said in a statement released by her office.

“I was very much looking forward to chairing the California delegation, and I offer my best wishes to California’s delegates in this vital nomination process,” she added.

Maybe the environment is trying to tell her something.

Clinton Laying Off Advance Team

From Ben Smith at Politico:

Members of Hillary Clinton's advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.

The advance staffers — most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana — are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed — at least — some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate's events around the country.

With the future of her campaign in doubt, Clinton hasn't announced her plans for the final election night of the primary cycle or beyond, but the aides said she would stage her election night event in New York City. Her entourage is currently expected to wake up Tuesday in New York and to arrive in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night.

Clinton's senior aides didn't respond to requests for comment on her Tuesday night plans.

That doesn't bode well for any future campaign plans for Hillary. However, if she wants to stay in the race she won't be campaigning to the public, but to the superdelegates. And, of course, she may be sitting back and waiting for the next shoe to drop on Obama - the one that finally convinces the Dem leaders that Obama can't win. It's a longshot, but so far that's pretty much defined the Clinton campaign.

Bill Clinton: Hillary the Victim of a Cover-up

It just gets better and better in the Dem nominating battle:

(CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to “cover this up” and “push and pressure and bully” superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

"I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” he said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News. “'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'"

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate. "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence,” he said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.”

“Her only position was, ‘Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win — but let's let everybody vote, and count every vote,’" he said.

The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development. "If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote,” said Clinton.

“And they're trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan” – which the party would need to do “unless we want to lose the election. "

Bill's cries will fall on deaf ears...thankfully. He's actually right about the general election. Hillary will have a better chance of winning against McCain, but she won't get the chance. Her RFK statements pretty much assured that.

Obama Superdelegate Ready to Push for Polygamy

California Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark just announced his support for Barack Obama, and during an interview on XM radio, was asked his thoughts on the California gay marriage decision. After spouting the usual tripe about Christians and homophobes, he then added this (h/t Campaign Spot):

I wonder what they're going to do with the Mormons. I'd like to put polygamy up if they want to fight this battle. Let's go into Utah and have it out. I mean, I don't have any quarrel with polygamy, as long as they leave little kids alone, which is child abuse.

But if you want to have three husbands, be my guest. I think that to me, that's your decision.

I think it's kind of humorous you're going to find the Mormons leading the fight against gay marriage, which is an interesting commentary on what you believe.

One of the major objections that many conservatives have about the Supreme's decision is that it will open the doors to all kinds of wacky behavior. The decision stated that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional partly because it made some people "feel" that they were being discriminated against. Well, what about the guy who's feeling discriminated against because the State won't let him marry his sheep? What about the 40-year old male NAMBLA member who wants to marry a 12-year old boy? And what about the Arkansas transplant that wants to marry his sister? (Sorry, cheap shot.)

As, of course, as Obama superdelegate Rep. Stark reminds us, what about polygamists?

Slippery slope, folks, slippery slope.

Having Your Clinton and Obama Too!

Hillary's not about to give up, and her campaign is making their case to the media and the party:

ABC News' David Chalian Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton's two top strategists attended a breakfast with political reporters in Washington this morning to make the case for her continued candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"We are not oblivious to the environment in which we are operating," said strategist Geoff Garin.

He went on to compare the contest to a tennis match -- of course, a best of five set men's tennis match.

"If someone was down a few games in the third set, I think you would be disappointed if the person walked off the court," Garin said.

"And sometimes even when people are down two sets to love and down a couple of games in the third set, they end up winning by the fifth set," he added.

Communications Director Howard Wolfson and Garin made a two-fold electability argument they hope the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will find compelling enough for Sen. Clinton to win their support and upend the nomination race.

The campaign looked at all the most recent general election match-up polls in the 50 states and claimed Clinton leads Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by 42 electoral votes compared to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., trailing McCain by 8 electoral votes.

They also cited Florida, Ohio, and Missouri as the key differences that tipped the map to Sen. Clinton's favor.

The other argument put forth by the struggling Clinton campaign Friday was an attempt to paint her as the stronger candidate for critical down ballot races.

And how about this:

The Clinton campaign releases that, "several members of Congress released a letter today to other Democrats touting their support for Hillary, saying she is the strongest candidate to have at the top of the ticket in the fall: '[W]e are convinced that Hillary Clinton has the vision, skills and commitment to make the changes our country needs. As Democrats who have run and won in competitive Congressional districts and battleground states, we believe that Hillary is best positioned to successfully lead the Democratic ticket in districts and states like ours around the country.' (Read the letter.)

This is a pretty blatant attempt to pursuade the party that if they want Obama so much, he'd be better as second fiddle (VP). She's making the case for herself at the top of the ticket and overruling the voters. The thing is, she's probably right. She probably would be the stronger general election candidate against McCain, but Obama as VP wouldn't hold the various coalitions that make up his support (eggheads, blacks and youths). They'd all get mad, stomp their feet, and quick possibly stay home or vote for McCain just to get even with Hillary.

The chaos continues.

Reading List for the Dem Primary

There are a number of interesting articles today on the current state of the Dem race, from pleas to Hillary to get out, to various explanations of why she stays in. Rather than try and excerpt a bunch of stuff, I'll just give you the reading list:

Desperate Clinton is Danger to Dems - Eugene Robinson, Washington Post

A Farewell to Hillary - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

Let Them Eat Arugula - Jonathan Chait, The New Republic (note the first comment)

Kryptonite for Superdelegates? - Political Diary

Damsel of Distress - Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

The Clinton Divorce - Wall Street Journal

Very different points of view, but all interesting.

Superdelegate for Sale

What does it take to get the support of this superdelegate? $20 million dollars:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - What will it take for a Democratic presidential candidate to win the support of California superdelegate Steven Ybarra?

Say, $20 million.

The Democratic National Committee member doesn't parse his words when it comes to what he wants from Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton - an ironclad promise to spend that heady amount to register Mexican-American voters and get them to the polls in November.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, he said he plans to remain undecided in the tight contest until "someone shows me the money."

When will he settle on a candidate?

"Nobody showed me any money yet," he said.

He's not kidding. To Ybarra, a Sacramento lawyer, the stakes are no less than winning the presidency in November.

He predicted that as many as 1.3 million Mexican-Americans could be added to voter rolls in New Mexico, Colorado, Florida and other swing states, a potentially decisive edge for the eventual Democratic nominee.

With that investment of funds, Mexican-Americans would realize Democratic leaders "care about us," Ybarra said, referring to Mexican-Americans.

Is $20 million a lot to ask?

In 2004, "they spent a billion to lose," he said.

So much for principles.

Look for a Split Decision in Today's Primaries

The expected results for today - a big win for Obama in North Carolina and a much narrower win for Clinton in Indiana (from Drudge):

Hillary Clinton's inner circle now fears a stinging defeat is likely in North Carolina.

"Look, we worked hard and gave it our best shot, but the demographics, well, they are what they are," a top campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT as voting began Tuesday morning.

The campaign now believes a 15 point loss, or more, would not be surprising. Her team will work hard throughout the day to lower all expectations in North Carolina.

The campaign hopes media attention will stay fixated on the competition in Indiana, where 72 delegates are on the line, and Clinton internals show a victory!

The only way the race really gets a shake-up today is if one of the candidates wins both races. If it's Hillary, she gets a big boost in her efforts to win superdelegates and it becomes clear that Rev. Wright hurt Obama badly. If Obama wins both, the superdelegates will flee to Obama in increasing numbers and Hillary's options will be dramatically reduced. She'll have a hard time convincing anybody that she has a path to victory.

However, it looks like we'll have a split decision and the bloodletting will go on.

Good.

Superdelegates Moving Toward Clinton

A rather high profile superdelegate and former DNC chairman has switched from Hillary to Obama, and his reasoning suggests that some superdelegates are finally waking up to the damage being done to the party:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton has switched his allegiance to Barack Obama and is encouraging fellow Democrats to "heal the rift in our party" and unite behind the Illinois senator.

Joe Andrew, who was Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, planned a news conference Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis to urge other Hoosiers to support Obama in Tuesday's primary, perhaps the most important contest left in the White House race. He also has written a lengthy letter explaining his decision that he plans to send to other superdelegates.

"I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC near the end of his presidency, and Andrew endorsed the former first lady last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.

Andrew said in his letter that he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

"While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us," Andrew wrote. "John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives."

Andrew said the Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support, but he decided to do so after watching Obama's handling of two issues in recent days. He said Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

This guy must impress pretty easily given that it took Obama weeks and weeks to finally deal with Rev. Wright. He tried to defuse it with his "race" speech, tried to downplay the comments in a variety of ways, and after Wright acted the fool at the National Press Club, finally had to say what he should have said weeks ago. Not that impressive a performance.

It's becoming clear to me (and the superdelegates) that the Dem contest is now all about race and about trying to hold together various special interest groups who might abandon the party should they choose Hillary. It's not even about winning anymore, though Andrews tries to suggest that it is. Obama is now clearly the weaker candidate against McCain, but it now appears that he will get the nod regardless of how Hillary performs in the coming primaries.

By choosing Obama the party will decide that it's better to lose than to be accused of racism. Works for me.

So, What Happens with Obama Now?

I'm not sure anybody knows. Just look at these headlines from RealClearPolitics:

What Took So Long for Obama to React? - Peter Canellos, Boston Globe

Breaking with Wright is an Opportunity for Obama - Dick Morris, The Hill

The Danger for Obama Isn't Over - Byron York, National Review Online

The Problem is Not Jeremiah Wright - John Nichols, The Nation

Obama's Chickens Come Home to Roost - Robert Tracinski, TIA Daily

This headline, however, should give Obama a little boost of confidence:

Race Divide Means Supers Can't Pick Clinton - Gabor Steingart, Der Spiegel

Race may well be the deciding factor, even over electibility. The Dem superdelegates may be petrified about what will happen should they reject Obama, and may have to choose him even though he's less likely to win. I'm sure many of them will look at Hillary as the frontrunner for 2012 if Obama loses, so they figure it's better to take the chance on Obama now and now risk losing all the special interest groups that might abandon the party should they make Hillary the nominee.

How Will the Dem Race End?

Time Magazine takes a look at three possible resolutions to the Dem primary race. Here's number 1:

1. Clinton Loses Indiana on May 6 and Pulls Out
There will be two primaries that day, but North Carolina is considered almost certain to go for Obama, which means Clinton will be putting most of her effort into Indiana. Privately, her advisers concede that it will be difficult to continue in the race if she does not win there.

It won't be any more difficult for Clinton to go on after a narrow loss in Indiana than it is for her to go on now. Indiana is expected to be close, and thanks to Dem rules, the delegate totals will be very close. With additional primaries to go and no resolution to the Michigan/Florida mess, a loss in Indiana won't be enough to get her out of the race.

Number 2:

2. Party Leaders End It in June
Worried democrats have been talking for weeks about the possibility of party elders conspiring to bring things to a close in May. But in a group as leaderless as the Democratic Party, it is far from clear who actually has the clout to play that role, especially while there are states that have yet to vote. Al Gore, assumed to favor Obama, has resisted those who have entreated him to make a public move, telling them privately, "Nobody likes an umpire."

All that could change after the last two states, South Dakota and Montana, vote on June 3. That's the time party chairman Howard Dean, Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are expected to tell the superdelegates — about 300 of the roughly 800 delegates overall who have yet to commit — that it is time to make up their minds. Pelosi in particular is key, as more than 70 of those uncommitted superdelegates are House members. For many, holding back now is more a matter of principle than preference. "They don't want to be perceived as telling voters how to vote," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, who is heading Obama's superdelegate effort.

It's not going to end this way, either. Even if every single superdelegate announces their choice on June 4th and Hillary is mathematically eliminated, she knows that party rules do not commit any superdelegates to vote for a previously announced candidate and that they can change right up to the actual ballot in Denver. With more than two months remaining until the convention, she will still have plenty of time to twist arms and make the case that Obama can't win against McCain. What would she have to gain by quitting at that point?

Number 3:

3. A Fight All the Way to Denver
Resolving the unfinished business of how and whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates could make the recent sniping between Obama and Clinton seem like back-fence chitchat. Florida's situation should be the easier of the two, because both candidates were on the ballot there and turnout was high. Michigan is another story, because Obama's name didn't appear on the ballot. Clinton's team is saying she won't agree to any resolution in either state that would dilute her delegate totals, a position that could lead to a summerlong brawl if her team sticks with it to the end.

That would mean that for the first time since 1972, the party could open its national convention without a nominee-designate. Right now the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations rests with the party's rules and bylaws committee, a group of fewer than 100 party regulars who are trying to work out a resolution. But if they don't find one before June 29, the matter moves to the credentials committee, which is nearly twice as big and even more political — and over which Howard Dean will hold relatively little power. Imagine that: after a year of record-shattering turnout, the party's nominee could be chosen in a smoke-filled room — in July. If it comes to that, at least one person will be smiling: John McCain.

Now we're talking. The situation in Florida and Michigan cannot be resolved before the convention in a way that will be satisfactory to both campaigns. Given the argument in #2 above about the freedom of superdelegates (and even some pledged delegates) to vote however they wish in Denver, I think Hillary will roll the dice and stay in the race in the hopes that more information will come out to damage Obama's chances, and that more articles like this one will be written telling Democrats that America is not ready to elect a black president. All of this will be worked into Hillary's argument to the superdelegates that they must, for the sake of the party and the country, overturn the will of the primary voters and make her the nominee.

Let the games continue.

McCain vs. Clinton or Obama - State-by-State April 20th Update

UPDATE: New numbers from May 12th

Karl Rove has been collecting the public general election polls from each state to determine how the race looks at the present time between John McCain and either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. (Note to the anti-Rovians - he's collecting the polls, not conducting them.) I posted a previous version of Rove's report here, and today on Fox News Sunday he brought in some updated figures which showed surprising results.

First, on McCain vs. Obama, in the last three weeks the number have gone from McCain 241, Obama 205, and 92 toss-ups to McCain 261, Obama 195 and 82 toss-ups, leaving McCain needing only 9 electoral votes to win. That's a significant change in the last three weeks which included a lot of gaffes and problems for Obama.

It gets even more interesting when you look at the McCain vs. Clinton race. Three weeks ago it was McCain 262, Clinton 166, with 110 toss-ups. Now it's McCain 214, Clinton 161, with 163 toss-ups. Both candidates lost ground in states won, but Clinton has put more states in play.

I wonder what the superdelegates are thinking as they watch these numbers?

Howard the Donkey Wants an Answer NOW!

Howard Dean is getting tired of watching his party's self-demolition derby:

(CNN)— An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”

“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”

After facing criticism for a mostly hands-off leadership style during much of the primary season, Dean has been steadily raising the rhetorical pressure on superdelegates. He said Thursday that roughly 65 percent of them have made their preference plain, but that more than 300 have yet to make up their minds.

The national party chair, who has remained neutral throughout the primary process, said again it’s his job to make sure both candidates feel they are treated fairly – but not to tell either of them when to end their run.

Speaking of superdelegates, according to the NY Times, they weren't swayed by Hillary's performance in last night's debate:

Throughout their contentious debate on Wednesday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton tried again and again to put Senator Barack Obama on the defensive in a pointed effort, her advisers say, to raise doubts about his electability among a small but powerful audience: the uncommitted superdelegates who will most likely determine the nomination.

But although Clinton gave it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates — members of Congress, elected officials and party leaders — showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Obama's strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.

It looks like Hillary's time may soon be over.

The Story Clinton Won't Tell

Politico explains why Hillary Clinton refuses to bow to media and party pressure to get out of the race. She thinks Obama will be a disaster for the Dems:

Why, ask many Democrats and media commentators, won’t Hillary Rodham Clinton see the long odds against her, put her own ambitions aside, and gracefully embrace Barack Obama as the inevitable Democratic nominee?

Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naïve Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps won’t tell the story.

But Hillary Clinton won’t tell it, either.

A lot of coverage of the Clinton campaign supposes them to be in kitchen-sink mode—hurling every pot and pan, no matter the damage this might do to Obama as the likely Democratic nominee in the fall.

In fact, the Democratic race has not been especially rough by historical standards. What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: That if Obama is the nominee a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.

Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico.)

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton—in the genteel confines of an intra-party contest—never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style

This view has been an article of faith among Clinton advisers for months, but it got powerful new affirmation last week with Obama’s clumsy ruminations about why “bitter” small-town voters turn to guns and God.

There’s nothing to say that the Clintonites are right about Obama’s presumed vulnerabilities. But one argument seems indisputably true: Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges.

That is why some friends describe Clinton as seeing herself on a mission to save Democrats from themselves. Her candidacy may be a long shot, but no one should expect she will end it unless or until every last door has been shut.

She did let this opinion about Obama's electibility out...briefly, when it was reported that she and her surrogates were quietly telling the party power brokers that Obama can't win. However, her efforts at the time didn't stop Bill Richardson from endorsing Obama. Given the flap this week over Obama's "bitter America" statements, some of the those superdelegates may be having second thoughts.

Obama More Liberal Than the Image He Presents

Politico reports that Barack Obama advocated for positions much more liberal than the moderate he presents himself to be today:

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer.

The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, were later supplied directly from the group, Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama’s campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and positions, since both were active in it before his 1996 state Senate run.

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”

But the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability. Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the superdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama.

This really isn't much of a suprise. Candidates from both parties rarely run on the same political principles they claim to believe. Everyone thinks they have to run to the center to gain votes.

The "my aide filled out the survey" sounds a lot like "my dog ate my homework". Aides don't just make stuff up - they answer political surveys in the way their candidates would according to the political beliefs they promote. I have no doubt that Obama is as liberal as these survey's would suggest.

This does create a little extra concern for Obama with the superdelegates. These are the kinds of stories that build up in the minds of superdelegates and raise doubts about Obama's chances in the general election. It's stuff like this that is keeping Hillary Clinton in the race.

Hillary Vows to Fight On

Although some senior Dems and party officials are calling for Hillary to withdraw from the race in the name of "party unity", she's not buying it:

NEW ALBANY, Ind., March 29 -- In her most definitive comments to date on the subject, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought Saturday to put to rest any notion that she will drop out of the presidential race, pledging in an interview to not only compete in all the remaining primaries but also continue until there is a resolution of the disqualified results in Florida and Michigan.

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring that she will take her campaign all the way to the Aug. 25-28 convention if necessary, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly anxious to avoid.

"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong," Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.

"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."

Asked if there was a scenario in which she would drop out before the last primaries on June 3, Clinton said no. "I am committed to competing everywhere that there is an election," she said.

At this point in the process I don't think there's any scenario imaginable that has Hillary quitting before the convention. Even if Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen and other senior Dems get their way and have a "superdelegate convention" of sorts in July, Hillary is not bound to abide by their wishes. Even if they come out and declare Obama the winner based on their votes, she will probably stay in until the actual votes are cast in Denver out of a hope that something might happen to the Obama campaign that could swing the superdelegates back to her.

Her statement about staying in until the delegates in Michigan and Florida are resolved is another indication that she won't get out until Denver. It doesn't appear that there will be any solution outside the credentials committee that will be satisfactory to both campaigns.

It's going to be a long, hot summer.

Michael Barone Projects That Clinton Will Win the Popular Vote

In a lengthy piece filled with the kind of political prognostication that he is really good at, Michael Barone posts his reasons why he thinks that when all the primaries are done Hillary Clinton will have overtaken Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote, something she must do to have any hope of continuing the fight to the convention. If Michael is right (and he usually is), the Dem race will only get more interesting as Clinton will finally have a statistic on her side that could cause some superdelegates to reconsider taking the nomination away from Obama, who will still be the leader in pledged delegates.

This is all the more reason for Operation Chaos to continue.

Howard the Donkey Wants the Superdelegates to Make a Decision

Howard Dean is taking heat for not being more involved in the Dem delegate battle, so today he's asking the superdelegates to make their decision by July 1:

A potential game-changer from CBS News and "The Early Show." Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says he wants superdelegates to make a decision by JULY 1 -- the most specific he has been in his effort to prod the party to decide between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton before the Democratic National Convention in late August.

Harry Smith asked if after the nominating contests end with the South Dakota and Montana primaries on June 3, "Do you want the superdelegates to have some sort of vote immediately so that you'll know months in advance of the convention what the outcome is?”

Dean replied: “Well, I think the superdelegates have already been weighing in. I think that there's 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they're for. I'd like the other 350 to say who they're at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.”

An aide explains that July 1 is not a drop-dead deadline: "The point is before the convention, ideally in June."

I hate to disagree to Ben Smith at the Politico, but this won't be a "game-changer" at all because the Clintons have no intention whatsoever of quitting before a convention fight if the supers go against them. If by some miracle the supers put Clinton on top, Hill and Bill would immediately demand the withdrawal of Obama from the race. That's the way they work.

I don't think all the superdelegates will cooperate. Some will not want to make their decision until they have to in Denver just in case events occur in July or August that could change the race.

Nice try, Howard, but it isn't going to happen the way you want it to.

Clinton Backers Scold San Fran Nan

I knew that sooner or later the Clinton folks would take exception to the various proclamations of Nancy Pelosi regarding superdelegates:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly 20 high-profile Hillary Clinton backers strongly criticized Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday over her recent suggestion that Democratic party superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegate outcome at the party's convention this August.

In a letter to the House Speaker dated Wednesday, the backers said that position is at odds with the party's original intent on what the role of superdelegates should be. (Read full letter [PDF])

"Superdelegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee," the backers wrote.

"Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination," they also said. "In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election."

In an ABC interview earlier this month, Pelosi said it was her belief whichever candidate ended the round of primaries with the pledged-delegate lead should be awarded the Democratic nomination by the superdelegates. That argument would benefit Barack Obama, whose current pledged delegate lead of 171 is virtually insurmountable given the party's proportional delegation allocations, even if Clinton were to win each of the remaining 10 primary contests.

In their letter to Pelosi, the backers urged the House speaker to "clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August."

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," Pelosi said.

It's "go time" for the Clintons. They want the superdelegates free to vote for her without pressure from party leadership, and Hillary has also proclaimed that no delegates are truly "pledged" at the convention and they can also vote for whomever they wish. She's planning to go the distance.

UPDATE: In an interview with Fox News Hillary says she's going to stay in the race all the way to the convention and wouldn't mind a credentials committee fight.

Goody, goody, goody....

The 5% Chance

David Brooks, writing in the NY Times, gives Hillary Clinton only a 5% change of wresting the nomination from Barack Obama and then goes on to detail what Hillary will do for the 5% chance:

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.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

Some folks are still worried that keeping Hillary alive in the campaign could come back to haunt the GOP in the fall, but I have my doubts. Both Dems are hurting each other without laying a glove on McCain, and much of the damage is self-inflicted. To mix sports metaphors, once one candidate has the ball and starts gaining yards, they fumble. Just last week Hillary had the momentum as the "pastor disaster" was unfolding for Obama, but then James Carville made his amazingly stupid remark comparing Bill Richardson to Judas (which by inference compares Hillary to Jesus), and voila, a fumble. Add to that the unmasking of Hillary's Balkan fairy tale and you have the end of a potentially winning drive.

It's all just too much fun.

I'll talk about this subject and more on Tueday's BlogTalkRadio program (on a special night this week) which you can hear by clicking on the icon. Feel free to call in and join the conversation. The show kicks off at 7pm PT tonight.

It'll just be me and you, so call in and let's talk. The call-in number will be (347) 347-5547.