Barack visits Bend, Oregon's PV Power, a green collar employer focused on solar power

From the Seattle PI political blog:

Obama brings campaign to Bend

P-I columnist Joel Connelly was in Oregon Saturday following Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as they continue campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Connelly reports that Obama became the first major presidential candidate in 40 years to visit eastern Oregon when he stumped in Bend Saturday afternoon (some may debate whether Bend is in eastern Oregon, but it is east of the Cascade Mountains). A crowd of about 2,000 jammed the gym at Summit High School to hear Obama, who is inching closer to locking up his party's nomination.

Obama was introduced by Bend resident Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of slain civil rights leader Medger Evers and the first woman to lead the NAACP.

Connelly says the crowd was enthusiastic but "there were a fair number of undecided" voters.

Connelly, by the way, is a great columnist -- his latest ("Obama shows he can go the distance on long, dirty trail") is a good read.

::

Update: Just as I posted this blog entry, HMJ from Bend, OR wrote in with a wonderful writeup of Barack Obama's town hall in Bend. I've posted it along with a picture she was able to take.

::

Obama came to our town of 80,000 today and spoke to a packed house of 2,000 in the gym of one of our high schools.  Our town is mostly white, the greatest minority is Hispanics; we have relatively few blacks or Asians.  Since you're in Nevada, you probably know Bend is right about in the middle of the state geographically.  We have everything in our town from homeless working folks to weathy retired people (most moved up from CA).  We've had lots of layoffs from good-paying jobs.  At the town hall today were babies thru senior citizens.  The overall mood was very pro-Obama and I feel good about that.  Lots of applause in many places.

Since I had knee surgery recently and am still not good on stairs (and we were far enough back in line that bleachers were all the seating that was left), my friend and I got to sit in the ADA area on one side of the podium... in the second row.  If you see the AP photo of Koko the guide dog, we were in the row behind Koko's blind master and a few seats down.  So we had a good view, to say the least, only about 20 feet from the podium!

The speech was Obama's basic stump speech, which is very good.  He spent the opening standing at the podium so that he could read the list of people to thank.  Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D) came with him - he's not our rep, we have Walden (R), ugh, as our district is more Republican than Democratic.  During the speech, Obama paced back and forth and around the podium as there were people surrounding him on all sides. 

After the speech, Obama said he could take a few questions, but had only 25 minutes because he needed to get home for Mother's Day to spend the day with the women in his life.  :-)  As usual, the questions asked by ordinary citizens far surpassed any that the so-called professional media has asked at debates.  One man asked about nuclear power and Obama used that for a general discussion on energy.  He quieted my fears on nuclear (as I'd heard he was pro-nuclear) by qualifying it as only part of the energy equation and only if we can safely store the waste and the projects are not boondoggles.  A young woman asked about student loans, as she has some from her undergrad days and is about to embark into grad school.  Again, great answers from Obama.  There was one question about "new math", Hillary's new math about Florida and Obama spoke about FL and MI.  My mind kind of wandered at this point, but he did say he took his name off the ballot in MI so it wasn't exactly a fair election.  There were a couple more questions that I've forgotten, and the last was about outsourcing jobs, from a guy who looked your typical blue collar, could have been a lumberjack if we had any of those jobs left.  Not that I want all of our forests cut down!

I just found out from the friend that went with me that the local TV station broadcast it live, which I didn't know or I would have recorded it.  The gym got quite warm with all the bodies, and there wasn't any (55 degree) fresh air coming in - no windows, and the doors were kept closed for security reasons.  I suppose that's why Obama had his sleeves rolled up and no tie or jacket.  Speaking of security, it was very tight.  No large bags, no water bottles, no signs allowed.  They checked everything and we went thru metal detectors and I got wanded (my keys and pants zipper set it off, but not the titanium in my knee).

As Obama came out, he shook hands with people on the way, then stopped and went to the podium; at the end, he picked up where he left off and came by us so we got to shake his hand.  We got a little crushed by people behind us moving up (I had anticipated this and picked up my fanny pack containing my wallet and cell phone off the floor!) but my friend and I told folks that they should be careful as this was the disabled section so they backed off a little.  An elderly man behind us was there with his family, including his 7-week-old great granddaughter and the baby got handed to Obama and had their photo taken.  It was a pretty cool gathering.

I'm attaching two of the photos I took.

I'm sure hoping that Oregon will put Barack Obama over the top as you've suggested.  I never ever thought our state would matter - we don't usually - and this attention is fun.

::

Thanks for the report, HMJ!

↑ Shrink post ↑

Eugene, Oregon - Friday, May 9, 2008

Lost in the discussion about demographics is the fact that throughout this nomination contest, Barack Obama has been unwilling to accept the conventional wisdom about how campaigns are run and elections are won.

I'll admit an initial skepticism to Obama's approach to the electoral map. At the beginning of the race, I didn't think the map could change. The idea of building new coalitions and increasing youth turnout seemed romantic, at best.

Boy, I was wrong. I remember a post by Atrios shortly after Iowa that went something like this: "Obama supporters have a way of telling you: trust us, it'll all work out. And you think they're crazy. And maybe they are. But then it does work out. And you start to say to yourself: maybe they know what their doing."

Well, there's no longer a question about that. Clearly, the Obama campaign knows what it is doing. And that's why it's important that today they announced the official kickoff of Vote for Change, a 50-state (no, not 57...) voter registration drive. The Obama effort to reshape the electorate has no equivalent on the Republican or Democratic sides and is a powerful argument for the Obama candidacy.

Skeptics like Paul Krugman may scoff at the notion of trying to change the game by bringing in new voters to the system. And to be fair, it won't be easy. But given the fact that Democrats haven't won a majority since 1976 when Jimmy Carter won 50.1% of the vote, wouldn't it be crazy not to at least try?

(This will be my last post on Krugman's Friday column -- my other two are here and here.)

Krugman says:

the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times...Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites.

Ah, yes -- the "African-Americans and eggheads" theory of the Democratic Party. Let's look at the stats about Clinton:

• In February, 85% of Clinton's support came from whites and Hispanics
• From March-May, 93% of Clinton's support came from whites and Hispanics.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama had a broader coalition:

• In February, 60% of Obama's support came from whites and Hispanics
• From March-May, 59% of his support came from whites and Hispanics

Now neither of these numbers are representative of the Democratic electorate, about three-quarters of which is white or Hispanic. And certainly both candidates would have work to do to unify the Democratic Party. But at least from my perspective, it's pretty obvious which of the two candidates is more capable of putting together a broad multi-racial, multi-ethnic coalition to defeat John McCain -- Barack Obama, because he starts with one.

Krugman:

Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished. ... Discussions of how and why Mr. Obama’s support narrowed over time have a Rashomon-like quality: different observers see very different truths.

Ah yes, he asks how and why without asking whether or if. Perfect.

The problem here is with Krugman's assumption -- that Barack Obama's support from whites is whithering.

On the surface, Krugman's assumption seems like it might be correct -- in February, Obama won 42% of the white vote and from March to May he won just 38%.

But Krugman doesn't take regional differences into account, nor does he take the influx of pro-McCain voters into the primary into account. After adjusting for those voters and eliminating home states (IL and NY) as well as western states (AZ, CA, and UT), none of which had primaries in March-May, the "withering" shrinks. Taking these factors into account, Obama won 40% of the white vote in February and 39% from March to May.

Narrowing it down further, in Ohio and Mississippi, Obama won 35% of the white vote (40% if you include Texas). In Pennsylvania, he won 37%. And in Indiana and North Carolina, he won 41%.

So this "withering" narrative is manifestly false (especially with respect to Obama's position in national polls circa November/December 2007).

The cool thing about each media organization having a different way of tabulating superdelegate totals is that Obama will surpass Clinton in the superdelegate category umpteen times. He's already done at least twice before with Politico and ABC. Now he surpasses her again, this time with the New York Times. Now that is momentum!

An hour ago, the AP had him within 1/2 a superdelegate of the lead, and that will probably change now that Obama has added two more superdelegates, both from the Virgin Islands -- one of them a switch from Clinton to Obama. (Carole Burke, who was undeclared, is now for Obama, and Kevin Rodriguez, who was for Clinton, is now for Obama.)

As for me, I'm waiting for Democratic Convention Watch to make the call. Why? Because I think their blog is pretty cool.

John McCain has all sorts of problems with lobbyists. Earlier this year, he was accused (without any meaningful evidence) of having an affair with one. In retrospect, however, that unfair allegation seems insignificant.

Since then, we've learned that his three of his top aides and advisors were lobbyists for Airbus, and that John McCain personally intervened to help Airbus pursue a huge contract from the U.S. Air Force. Airbus won the contract, taking jobs away from Boeing and other American companies and sending them overseas.

And now Newsweek reports that the man McCain selected to run the Republican convention is a lobbyist, and not just any lobbyist. The man, Doug Goodyear, is CEO of DCI Group, a lobbying firm that earned millions advocating for ExxonMobil, GM, and others.

But that's just typical influence peddling. Here's the really troubling thing about Goodyear's firm (remember, he is CEO):

The firm was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma's military junta, which had been strongly condemned by the State Department for its human-rights record and remains in power today. Justice Department lobbying records show DCI pushed to "begin a dialogue of political reconciliation" with the regime. It also led a PR campaign to burnish the junta's image, drafting releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing "falsehoods" by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses. "It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Goodyear told NEWSWEEK, adding the junta's record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."

Someone needs to tell John McCain that it's just not cool to reward lobbyists who once represented repressive regimes with leadership positions on a presidential campaign.

Update --The lobbyist resigns his position:

“Doug Goodyear resigned as convention coordinator and issued a two sentence statement: ‘Today I offered the convention my resignation so as not to become a distraction in this campaign. I continue to strongly support John McCain for president, and wish him the best of luck in this campaign.’ Goodyear is chief executive of DCI Group, a lobbying firm that Newsweek reported in a story posted online was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Myanmar's junta.”

Good. Lobbyists for foreign governments -- especially brutal dictatorships -- should not be rewarded with political patronage. It still raises the question: why did John McCain offer this lobbyist such an important role in first place?

Update 2 -- Ambinder reports a second lobbyist for the firm who was actually in charge of the account in question remains with McCain:

What becomes now of Doug Davenport, the DCI lobbying czar who is a campaign regional manager? A campaign spokesperson referred comment to Davenport, who did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment. As the head DCI lobbyist, Mr. Davenport would have been directly in charge of the Myanmar account during 2002.

Goodyear and Davenport were brought to the campaign by manager Rick Davis. This episode will increase criticism by some McCain allies that Davis has paid insufficient attention to McCain's brand by appointing so many lobbyists to key campaign positions.

Poblano makes a good point about Tuesday's primary in West Virginia:

One unrelated point that's probably not worth a post unto itself. The Obama campaign has one more vulnerability in this race, which is that the results of West Virginia are going to be much worse than most of the media seems to understand. We're talking a 25-point loss if he has big momentum coming out of North Carolina. That's on a good day. On a bad day, he could lose by 40-50 points. Congressional Districts throughout the Appalachians that are similar to West Virginia have gone to Clinton by 2:1 or 3:1 margins.

As such, the Obama campaign will have to fend off one last bad (though almost certainly not terminal) news cycle. And therefore, I'd expect them to hold back any truly huge superdelegate endorsements (Edwards, Gore) until that time. This is not based on any inside knowledge; it's just too logical a strategy for things to proceed any other way.

Of course, it won't make a difference for the outcome of the nomination battle, but it does mean that there will be a day or two of buzz about Clinton's performance, and she will probably once again play her card. Such is life, though. She's done.

I'm a huge fan of Paul Krugman and I can't count the number of times that I defended him in the face of criticism from Obama supporters. Indeed, my first ever recommended diary at Daily Kos consisted of a string of Paul Krugman columns extolling the virtues of John Edwards. (I was a vigorous Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the campaign.)

But as much of a positive voice as Paul Krugman has been for the left, his recent musings on the 2008 campaign have become increasingly useless. His column yesterday ("Think about November") was especially stupid. I don't use that term lightly -- I'd never want to go toe-to-toe with Krugman on any sort of intellectual horsepower competition. But this particular column was dumb, short-sighted, and way beneath his standards.

Ed Espinoza (aka Mr. Super), who just endorsed Barack Obama:

Lots of variables tossed around recently as to how to consider who should be the Democratic nominee.  Pledged delegates, popular vote, electoral vote, who leads in general election match-up polling, who has more blue state and/or red state wins.  Peter Funt satirically wrote that Senator Clinton has won more "new" states whereas someone else noted that Senator Obama has won more square ones.

This can be easily simplified: the one who figures out how to win the most delegates is the winner. 

Daily Kos diarist svotaw1992 had some time, a spreadsheet, and a little bit of curiosity -- and discovered that Ohio's official results show Clinton winning a narrower victory than originally. Apparently, now that Ohio has finally finished counting all of the roughly one hundred thousand provisional ballots, Clinton's final margin of victory was 8.7%, not the double-digit win reported on election night.

Now at this point, it doesn't make any difference as far as the nomination goes, but for two months we've suffered through discussion after discussion about how Clinton destroyed Obama in Ohio. Now, all that turns out to have been based on numbers that exaggerated the size of her win. Moreover, since exit poll data is based in part on actual vote results, the exit poll data also exaggerated the size of her win.

Here are the final totals (svotaw1992 has the gap at 8.8% which is correct if you exclude the Edwards votes, which I include to get the 8.7% margin).

• Clinton: 1,259,620 (53.49%)
• Obama: 1,055,769 (44.84%)
• Edwards: 39,332 (1.67%)

Here's what other sites were (and probably still are) reporting.

• CNN and MSNBC: Clinton, 1,207,806 (54%) to Obama 979,025 (44%)
• RealClearPolitics: Clinton, 1,212,362 (55.2%) to Obama 982,489 (44.8%)

Again, I'm not up in arms about this, and certainly don't take anything away from Clinton for having won, but it's something people should be aware of when thinking about the contours of this campaign.

Update: After posting this, it occurs to me that these new numbers also put Obama even further ahead in the "popular vote" -- adding another 26,022 votes to his lead over Clinton. Of course, the popular vote is a thoroughly flawed metric, but these numbers make it even harder for Clinton to reach Obama.

McCain starts to address an audience and...ooops...which side is up?

Dare I say...Barack Obama is going to put things rightside-up?

Now to be completely fair, McCain figured out his mistake rather quickly. The entire moment was actually kind of endearing, sort of like a fond family memory, if you know what I mean. It's a still capture from a Jeannie Moos essay on the campaign. Here's the key part:

(Thanks to reader SQ for the tip!)

Updates: Added full size picture. Changed title from "McCain Holds His Mic Upside-Down." Bumped at 4:40PM.

I don't know if Barack Obama takes the superdelegate lead today or this weekend (or maybe early next week?), but it's about to happen. When it does, he will lead in every single meaningful metric. Keep up with the fun over at DCW. Update: According to ABC's count, Obama already has the lead. Update 2: Politico also puts Obama in the lead.

At this point, the public has heard more vetting of Obama than they ever wanted to hear. (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Hamas, bowling, bitter, cling and did you know he's African-American?)

But there hasn't been much about John McCain other than a weak story about his relationship with a female lobbyist.

He's got more than his mic upside-down

Today, Washington Post begins to change that with a story about an Arizona land deal pushed by McCain that helped one of his key backers. (More background here from kos diarist kubla000.)

McCain presents himself as Mr. Clean when it comes to ethics and integrity, but stories like this will challenge that image.

Here's two more examples of things that the voting public doesn't know but should know -- and will know -- about John McCain:

** McCain is one hundred percent pro-life/anti-choice, and in the 1990s he sided with abortion-clinic bombers and opposed a tough new law against abortion-clinic terrorism. McCain does well with independent, pro-choice women, many of whom don't realize that he strongly favors repealing Roe v. Wade and will do everything in his power to appoint a Supreme Court that will take away their reproductive freedom (or their daughters' if they are beyond child-bearing age).

** McCain helped foreign-owned Airbus win a massive contract for aerial refueling tankers -- costing thousands of good jobs at Boeing throughout the United States. Meanwhile, several of his top aides and advisors are Airbus lobbyists. This will be especially important in Missouri and will guarantee that Washington state does not come into play.

I could go on, but my point is more a meta one: now that the primary is basically over, John McCain is returning to the spotlight. He's going to be put through the same vetting that Obama has gone through over the past couple of months.

McCain will now be assessed with a newly critical eye, and if today's story in the Washington Post is any indication, he might not look that good under scrutiny.

(Emphasis added.)

I slept in late this morning and felt absolutely no guilt when I woke up.

The primary is all but over -- now it's just a race for people to endorse Barack.

So...good morning! And how great it was to actually sleep peacefully for once.

By now, it's just a question of when and how the remaining loose ends of this nomination battle will get wrapped up, and increasingly all signs are pointing to May 20 as the day. Tonight, Obama made the case on NBC Nightly News:

As Barack says, the key thing about May 20 (the day of the Kentucky and Oregon primaries) is that on that day, he will secure a majority of democratically selected pledged delegates. After that point, the most important part of the process will be over. Unless superdelegates decide to overturn the judgment of voters and take the nomination away from Obama, it will be his.

We all know that won't happen, especially after Obama's blowout victory in North Carolina and his close performance in Indiana. (He would have won Indiana were it not for the meddling McCain supporters.)

The key reason we need superdelegates to get off their butts and sign up with Team Obama before May 20 is that as a party, we must make it clear that voters -- not party insiders -- chose our nominee. As I wrote on April 25 after the Pennsylvania primary:

There is no longer any question about whether or if Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. The question now is when and how he will be recognized as the party's presumptive nominee.

It will happen sometime before the Democratic National Convention, just as soon as he secures the 2,024 delegates it will take to win the nomination on the convention floor. When that moment is upon us, everything else that has happened in the campaign will be overshadowed, rendered moot in an instant.

Think of that moment like the final touchdown that puts away a football game for good. And in this football game, superdelegates control when and where that touchdown will occur. They have two options. They can try to score themselves, or they can hand the ball off to voters, and let the voters finish the game off.

Their decision won't change the outcome of the game. It will, however, change voter's perceptions about the winner of the game -- in this case, Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama is declared the presumptive nominee, it will be tremendously important that he be seen as having won on the strength of his electoral victories. To allow the formation of the unfair and absurd perception that an elite group of insiders handed him the nomination would be incredibly damaging to Democratic prospects in the fall.

Now what we need is for superdelegates to publicly declare their support -- or at least their membership in the Pelosi Club -- so that Barack Obama will be seen as reaching the magic number on May 20 on the strength of support from the voters.

Because of people like kos who have aggressively pushed this idea (for example, here and here), I'm beginning to think the May 20 option might actually happen. Now senior advisors to Obama are publicly pushing the idea as well. Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has focused on the importance of May 20. And now Barack Obama himself is weighing in.

The superdelegates can make this happen. They can let voters end this nomination battle on a high note twelve days from now, and they can let the healing process begin. They shouldn't think of this decision as a favor for or against either candidate: this something they should do for the good of the Democratic Party.

Somehow, despite the craziness and wackiness of this primary, I think enough superdelegates will step up to the plate so that we can finally end it where it began: at the hands of voters.

And what a glorious end it will be.

Today was the best day of the campaign so far. Why? Because the McCain campaign attacked Barack Obama...for attacking John McCain. It's not the attack -- it's what the attack means.

Finally, we've reached the general election. The primary is over, except for the cleaning up. It's now John McCain vs. Barack Obama.

The dispute centers on McCain's attempt to inject the words of Hamas into the presidential election, a blatant smear intended to make Obama appear sympathetic to radical terrorists. On CNN today, Obama said that McCain's attack was "dissapointing" and "offensive" and that McCain had "lost his bearings," straying from the high-minded campaign he had once promised to run.

The McCain camp attempted to steer discussion away from McCain's comments, saying that Obama's use of the the phrase "lost his bearings" was a transparent "way of raising John McCain's age as an issue." In response, the Obama camp called the McCain attack "bizarre," adding that "clearly losing one's bearings has no relation to age."

Here's video of Obama on CNN making the comments that provoked the McCain camp's ire. It's vintage Obama, tough but composed. As Joe Sudbay notes: "This is a sign of things to come -- and it is going to be fun.  John McCain has no idea what he's in for."

Poblano, a popular diarist at Daily Kos and proprietor of the polling-focused blog FiveThirtyEight.com, gets some love from Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal for having nailed both North Carolina and Indiana almost on the nose -- and better than any pollster.

Poblano -- you're hired!

(h/t: Ben Smith)

Wistful election night

From the Wall Street Journal's Democrats Look to Life After Clinton:

"The air is completely let out of them," said first-term Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, who is uncommitted to either candidate, referring to the Clinton supporters among his congressional colleagues.

"They are resigned to the fact that it's probably not going to work out."

Indeed. Time to move on.

It's painful watching Lanny Davis bickering about process. Is this really what superdelegates want to see for the next several weeks? If so, they should on sitting on their thumbs.

But if they want to elect a Democratic president, their time is now. Almost all the voters have spoken. Superdelegates can let voters close the process down on May 20 -- or they can keep it alive, and make us all suffer through more of this kind of garbage:

We're all waiting -- and we're all rooting for the supers to make the right call. It's not that hard a decision. Just make it.

Politico's David Paul Kuhn reports that the Obama campaign is planning to declare victory on May 20 after Kentucky and Oregon voters put him past the mark of 1,627 pledged delegates, guaranteeing him a majority of the democratically selected delegates.

“On May 20 we’re going to declare victory,” said an Obama senior advisor who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, adding that after those contests they will be “the ones with the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes.”

While the nature of that declaration of victory is “still developing,” in the advisor’s words, the Obama campaign contends that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates should be the party nominee.

“Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded,” wrote Obama campaign manager David Plouffe Wednesday in a memo to superdelegates. “It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules - your rules - which we built this campaign and our strategy around.”

I like the Obama plan. By focusing on the May 20 date, the Obama campaign is effectively establishing a decision timeline for the undeclared superdelegates, and could very well impel enough of them to act that it will render the Michigan / Florida discussion moot (if it hasn't been resolved already).

Former Congressman David Bonior of Michigan throws his support behind Barack Obama. Now we just need John Edwards himself -- along with his 19 pledged delegates. Better late than never.

From an old project of mine (now defunct)

Update from NBC's First Read:

Team Edwards climbing aboard? Today, word is out that Edwards manager David Bonior is officially endorsing Obama. What about his former boss? Well, John Edwards will be on TODAY tomorrow. Will we see an endorsement from him? Also of note, Elizabeth Edwards is testifying on Capitol Hill today. We're sure some reporter will get her to comment on whether Clinton should stay or go and we're sure Edwards has an opinion about it.

I'm sure more people see the cover of Time online than actually see it in real life. I can't remember the last time I touched a copy of the magazine with my own two hands, much less purchased one.

No matter, though -- this is pretty cool as it is.

During a telephone interview on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton told USA Today reporter Kathy Kiely that she could still win the nomination because she had a bigger political base than Barack Obama, citing her support from "white Americans" as evidence. Here's a transcript from the interview:

KIELY: How does Hillary Clinton win the nomination?

CLINTON: There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents, I was running even with him and doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.

Although Clinton's campaign has previously made it clear that white voters are a key focal point of her campaign, I think this is the first time she has personally linked the fate of her candidacy to "white Americans."

Partly, Clinton is making these comments to get attention. Her campaign is broke and she needs free media. She knows that the press loves to cover conflict, especially this kind of conflict. She's serving up raw meat on a platter, consequences be damned.

Moreover, it looks like Rachel Maddow was right. Clinton is going to stay in this campaign no matter how impossible her odds may be, and no matter how wrong or repellant her rationale may be. And make no mistake, in this case, her rationale is both untrue and foul.

First of all, Barack Obama has won more pledged delegates, more states, and more votes than Hillary Clinton, no matter how you count it. Under any imaginable standard, he will enter the fall campaign with a broader, larger political base than would Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's suggestion that her support from white Americans should trump Obama's larger political base is offensive on its face. It is true that she won more support from white voters in Indiana and North Carolina than did Barack Obama, but she still lost the two states combined by more than two hundred thousand votes.

Yeah, yeah. It's cheesy title for this post. But in my defense, I plagiarized it.

On Countdown, Olbermann and Maddow continued their first disagreement ever -- on whether or not Clinton's departure from the contest is imminent (in the video pod and also at the bottom of this post).

I lean towards Maddow's view of the situation, which is that Clinton will stay in. It was irrational for Clinton to be in the race two days ago, Maddow says, and it will be irrational tomorrow as well. Really, this isn't about Clinton -- it's about superdelegates. The power is in their hands.

Keith and Rachel also discuss the likely GOP strategy against McCain, and Maddow suggests that Republicans might try to exploit Obama's reluctance to fight fire with fire on personal attacks (Wright, Ayers) and process attacks (like his "present" votes). I think that Maddow is underestimating the extent to which Obama's reluctance to fight back has been because he hasn't wanted to further divide the Democratic Party since he has been on an essentially unbeatable path to the nomination.

Against McCain, he won't feel the same constraints, and will -- I think -- feel no reluctance about pushing back hard.

It is true, though, that Obama showed more energy than he had in several weeks during the gas tax debate. Sure, it was the dumbest policy proposal of the campaign, but at least it was something meaningful, and he clearly relished talking about it. It reinvigorated him personally, fired up his supporters, and best of all, worked on election day.

Marc Ambinder:

As Hillary Clinton ponders her next move, she is finding that there is consensus within her inner-most circle about whether to stay in the race -- the answer is yes -- but no consensus about why, and for how long.

Those questions are, shall we say, non-trivial.

NBC's First Read:

Clinton has asked several uncommitteds to come meet with her this evening at around 8 or 8:30, after votes on the housing bill now being considered on the House floor. Location TBD. I talked to three such members, who said that they are going to take a pass, simply because they have heard several times from both candidates personally over the course of the past week, and there is nothing more to be said. Another uncommitted said he was going to go out of a sense of courtesy.

Remember, uncommitted really isn't the right word. Undeclared is. Does anybody think that Jimmy Carter or Donna Brazile or Jim Clyburn are really uncommitted? Of course they support Obama. They just haven't declared themselves as such.

If you're a numbers geek, you'll like the The Clinton Nomination Matrix developed by Independent Don at Superdelegateland.

The chart takes as inputs Clinton's projected share of the remaining number of pledged delegates and add-on delegates and returns as an output the percentage of undeclared superdelegates she would need to win in order to secure the nomination.

After you spend a little time visualizing scenarios, you realize there is no way Clinton can pull off a victory (as if you didn't already know that).

An independent, conservative-leaning friend of mine writes:

I always knew that the Clintons were basically in it for themselves-- I even felt that in 1992 to some extent-- but nonetheless I am shocked at the lengths Hillary is willing to go to damage the Democratic party and its future nominee Barack Obama in what is a obviously futile pursuit of the nomination.  I've followed politics for two decades and it is some of the most petty behavior I've ever seen from a candidate-- and that's really saying something.  Clearly both Bill and Hillary only care about their own egos and power-- that is why she is still in this race. I understand why the media wants to still pretend there is a race going on-- it sells newspapers and drives up ratings.  The real mystery for me at this point is-- why would any Democrat who cares about winning in November choose to enable Hillary's misbehavior?

It is a mystery to me too.

...but didn't have to because AMERICAblog did:

• House, Senate Supporters Putting Pressure on Clinton
• Leading Gay Paper Unendorses Clinton
• WaPo's Balz: Clinton Nomination Dreams "Up In Smoke"

And, finally, HillaryIs404.org.

The short answer is yes in most cases. (Only voters who planned to both vote for McCain in the general and a majority of Dems in other races, or who had voted for a majority of Dems in the previous election, would be in compliance.)

There's no real good way to enforce the law, however. And that's a good thing. I don't want my government knowing for whom I voted.

But the point here is that Americans have a civic duty -- especially when it comes to the democratic process -- to do their very best to follow the law, whether or not they run the risk of being punished.

• George McGovern switches to Obama and urges Clinton to drop out.
• Virginia superdelegate switches to Obama, joining three new Obama supers. New Clinton superdelegate cancels her Virginia loss. Net +4 for Obama, 0 for Clinton.
  
• Senators Feinstein and Schumer, both Clinton backers, make noises about her departure.
• Clinton drops her Obama attacks in West Virginia campaign stop.
• Says her political base is stronger place to start from than Obama's.
• Clinton chief strategist says NC represented progress because she won whites.
• Clinton surrogate says it is all about the white voters.
• Kos asks: what else could've cost Obama yesterday's victory?

After the Pennsylvania primary, I argued that superdelegates should endorse Obama or join the Pelosi Club by May 20, the day on which Obama secures a pledged delegate majority. If enough of them did so, Obama would be become the presumptive nominee as the voters put him over the top of the 2,025 threshold instead of insiders.

It would be far preferable to any of the June scenarios, almost all of which would allow the media (perhaps justifiably) to create a potentially damaging narrative about Obama's victory.

Now it's starting to look like it might actually happen if Hillary does not withdraw sooner. Apparently, the Obama campaign is thinking along the same lines. I also heard Tim Russert float the idea last night and kos suggested it as well.

Update: Kos posts the Obama campaign memo to superdelegates, which also mentions the May 20 date. And in this post kos flat-out states he believes Obama will have the nomination wrapped up on May 20, with Oregon putting Obama over the top.

These guys probably can't vote until 2020, but they're already working for change in Charlotte.

I've updated the sidebar, removing the magic number tracker and other items in favor of a new "Obama Nomination Countdown."

The key feature of the nomination countdown is a conservative projection of the remaining pledged delegates and add-on superdelegates. Once those are taken into account, it become apparent just how close Obama is the nomination.

To secure the nomination, Obama must win a mere 18% of the remaining delegates (which include undeclared superdelegates and the 19 Edwards delegates). It would take a staggering turn of events for him to fail to reach that threshold. In fact, it is almost certain that at least 18% already support him, but just haven't announced their support. (Hence the term undeclared.)

As Obama moves towards becoming the presumptive nominee, and as we begin to say goodbye to the primary campaign, things will calm down on the political front. Obama will spend time introducing himself to voters in key battleground states.

He'll probably clash with McCain will from time to time, but with any luck, things won't really heat up again until the convention in August and then for a 10 week general election campaign.

And then, in just over seven months -- President Barack Obama.

Last night, MSNBC reported that Clinton had canceled her public appearances today, and then walked it back a little saying that she still planned an open-press fundraiser.

Now Clinton has scheduled an event for noon in West Virginia. (I feel so sorry for whoever has to do advance for that event on such short notice.)

I can see three possibilities here for what's going on:

1. She's going to announce her withdrawal from the campaign. (Okay, I'm just kidding.)
2. Clinton wants to make it clear she's not quitting, and as she has in the past after having faced rumors about her withdrawal, she decides to launch some nutso berzerk "shame on you" attack on Obama.
3. Clinton starts the process of trying to reinvent herself as a loyal member of the Democratic Party. She holds the event, and speaks warmly about Obama and stresses party unity.

It would probably be pleasant if she chose option #3, but if she does pick #2...yawn. No matter what she does -- it's all over. We know who the nominee will be.

Also, apparently Clinton has loaned her campaign another $6.4 million, bringing her total personal investment to $11.4 million.

Update: Joe Sudbay says her campaign is on MSNBC talking about Clinton dumping even more money into the race. Ha! Good luck retiring that debt.

Hillary Clinton’s narrow victory in Indiana last night would not have been possible without votes from John McCain supporters who have no intention of voting for her in the fall, even if she were to win the nomination.

Here’s a look at the numbers behind Clinton's Indiana performance (based on exit poll data on MSNBC.com):

Clinton won Indiana with 51% of the vote to Barack Obama’s 49% for a 2 margin of victory. After subtracting pro-McCain voters from each candidate’s total, however, the numbers reverse.

Excluding pro-McCain voters, Obama actually leads Clinton with just over 51% for a nearly 3 point margin.

In all, pro-McCain voters in Indiana caused a net shift of 5 points in Clinton's favor in the final margin, in the process taking what would have been a Barack Obama victory and handing it instead to Clinton.

In Indiana, more than 1 in 8 Clinton voters said they would vote for John McCain even if Clinton won the nomination compared to fewer than 1 in 22 Obama voters who said they would vote for McCain if Obama won the nomination.

In North Carolina's primary, which is closed to Republicans, Clinton relied even more heavily on pro-McCain voters who say they would not vote for her in the general election than she did in Indiana. (NC exit poll on MSNBC.com.)

Nearly 1 in 6 of Clinton’s North Carolina supporters were pro-McCain voters. Meanwhile, just 1 in 31 Obama supporters were pro-McCain voters.

The final results in North Carolina were 57.5% to 42.5%, giving Obama a 15 point victory. After subtracting pro-McCain voters from both candidates, Obama’s victory margin increases by 7 points, giving him a 22-point 61%-39% win.

By the books, there's no taking away Clinton's Indiana victory, but it is worth remember that it was only made possible by voters who have no intention of voting for a Democrat in the fall.

::

For an explanation of how I arrived at these numbers, please see this post on my methodology.

↑ Shrink post ↑

This post explains how I arrived at the numbers in "McCain Supporters Deliver Indiana To Clinton."

"And no one is going to dispute it."

Update: Russert updates MSNBC's report about the cancellation, saying an open-press fundraiser scheduled for tomorrow will continue.

She was scheduled to be on every morning show tomorrow and has canceled them all. (Her campaign now says the appearances were never officially scheduled.)

Even if she "wins" Indiana, it will certainly be only because of pro-McCain voters.

Chuck Todd just said: "It may have ended tonight."

Read the tea leaves.

Tim Russert is talking about Clinton's withdrawal and says the race is over.

Here's Tim Russert earlier in the evening talking about the approaching end-game:

I don't think anybody would be happy with an Obama-Clinton ticket, but as this primary winds down, Clinton will be stuck with a mountain of debt. Tim Russert just floated the idea of Obama helping to repay some of that debt (much of which, ironically, is owed to Mark Penn). If she agrees to withdraw from the race gracefully, I'd be happy to chip in as gesture of thanks. What about you? If she helps the healing process begin now, would you be willing to donate?

Update: Okay, okay! Maybe it's not the greatest idea in the world. I'll blame it on giddiness!

Watching Hillary's speech, I'm struck be the wistful expressions on Bill and Chelsea's faces. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but while you can see a genuine love on their part for Hillary, you can also sense they realize we might be nearing the end of this.

My dad, who supports Barack, just wrote me a funny e-mail:

The TV tells me I have to vote for Hillary because I'm too old to vote for Obama. CONFLICT!

Barack just started his victory speech in Raleigh, not too far from my place of birth. What a great night so far. His prepared remarks are after the jump.

Based on numbers from the Indiana exit poll (via MSNBC), I determined that 13% of Clinton voters in Indiana actually plan to vote for John McCain in November, nearly three times the number of Obama voters who plan to vote for McCain.

As we assess the election returns tonight, it is imperative that we factor out pro-McCain voters for both candidates. The exit poll will continue to be tweaked as the night goes along, but based on these preliminary numbers, 13.4% of Clinton's total vote should be discounted and 4.9% of Obama's vote should be discounted.

Effectively, for Clinton to say she won without the help of pro-McCain Republicans, she needs about 53% of the vote.

Exit poll data on MSNBC says 11% of voters in Indiana were Republicans and 53% of them voted for Clinton. 45% voted for Obama.

These numbers will be tweaked as final results come in, but it looks like about 4.5% of all voters will be Republicans for Obama -- exactly the same as his average for the previous eight open primary states with exit poll data on Republicans.

Meanwhile, Clinton looks set to get a little over 5% -- more than the 4.8% she averaged in Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi.

I'll bet that once we dive deep into the exit poll data, we'll see that about 3-4% of all voters were pro-McCain Republicans for Clinton. Keep that number in mind as numbers roll in throughout the night.

The game-changer goes to Obama. Clinton still looks set to win Indiana, but Obama won the big prize: the state of North Carolina.

Since John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination, it's become clear that a small but significant number of pro-McCain Republicans have begun participating in the Democratic primary and are voting for Hillary Clinton.

It's a trend that will have an impact on the results tonight in Indiana, though at this point we don't know how big. It's also not clear whether these Republicans are engaged in Operation Chaos-style "strategic voting" or if they are expressing their preference for second place.

Comparing the numbers from before McCain effectively secured the GOP nomination to after, it appears that since March, up to 3% of all voters in open Democratic primaries are Republicans supporting Clinton with no intention of actually voting for her in the general.

Indy Star:

Jim Adams, 36, voted for Hillary Clinton to keep the race going beyond Indiana. He's a McCain backer and enjoys watching the Democrats fight.

"In the end, I think McCain is going to win," Adams said, and then referred to controversial statements by Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor. "Bill can't keep his mouth shut, and the reverend can't keep his mouth shut."

Ben Smith:

"I voted for her because I think McCain would beat her," said one, Lee Engledow, 57, an Army veteran and the owner of a lawn care company eating lunch at the Indianapolis deli/cafeteria Shapiro's. He said he likes Obama, but he thinks he'd cut the military, and doesn't think the troops should be pulled out of Iraq.

Ben Smith notes he's running into the false Muslim smear in Indiana which isn't terribly surprising. I took a look at some polling data on the smear a few weeks back and it is striking how prevalent the smear is among voters without any education beyond the high school level. There is also a strong correlation between Obama's favorability and whether or not a voter believes the smear.

(Before I continue, I should note that it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. It's not a smear to be called a Muslim. The smear here is the implication that Obama is hiding his true faith in order further a radical anti-American agenda.)

Less-educated voters believe the false smear. Voters who believe the false smear are far more likely to vote McCain.

Assuming that a substantial share of those who believe Obama is Muslim can have their false perceptions changed, it would be enormously significant from an electoral point-of-view. Obama does better than both McCain and Hillary among highly-educated voters, and if he can beat back the impact of the false Muslim smear with less-educated voters, he'd be in an incredibly strong position to not just win, but win big.

It's just one more reason why we need to end this primary -- as long as Clinton is in the race, her supporters will have a psychological incentive to believe falsehoods about Obama (the reverse is also obviously true, though not the point of this post).

One final thought -- there's an understandable desire to not talk about things like this, especially in the middle of the primary, but it's a very real problem that we need to resolve. Talking openly about it not only makes it easier to address, but also helps erase the stigma of being of the Islamic faith. Since the essential point of the smear is that Obama is somehow hiding something, speaking about it in hushed tones actually reinforces it. Meanwhile, confronting it in the open is the best way to combat it. No fear.

...and not only did we not back down, but we didn't give a damn. I 100% agree with Aravosis on this: bring it on. We will win.

You might have heard about Indiana's restrictive photo ID law. It's a horrible law, but we can debate that another time.

The important thing today is that if you happen to know anyone who is an Indiana voter but does not have photo ID, they can still vote -- using a provisional ballot. They will have then ten days to then establish their identity. From the Indiana Secretary of State's office:

In most cases, an Indiana driver license, Indiana photo ID card, Military ID or U.S. Passport is sufficient.

A student ID from an Indiana State school may only be used if it meets all of the 4 criteria specified above. A student ID from a private institution may not be used for voting purposes. For more Information for College Students click here.

If you are unable or unwilling to present ID meeting these requirements, you may cast a provisional ballot. If you cast a provisional ballot, you have until noon 10 days after the election to follow up with the county election board and either provide the necessary documentation or affirm one of the law’s exemptions applies to you.

Frequently Asked Questions

• How do I get an ID?
• Are there exemptions?

I realize not many people on this blog live in Indiana, and even fewer have don't photo IDs, but if you happen to know anyone there in this situation, please remember that even without a photo ID, every registered voter can at least cast a provisional ballot. (From my understanding, unless you qualify for an exemption, you will then need to get a photo ID.)

(H/T: Democratic Convention Watch.)

Update: Josh Marshall spotlights a report about a dozen nuns turned away from the polls due to the photo ID law. It doesn't sound like they were able to cast provisional ballots.

Via Michael Calderone, the Harvard Crimson noted this exchange from Chris Matthews' appearance in Cambridge:

When asked by another audience member how he would respond to the claim that MSNBC officially supports Obama, Matthews responded with typical Hardball wit, “Well, it’s not official.”

Whatever it is, for the most part, I like it. (It says something about the strength of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson that I like MSNBC, which continues to employ idiots like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough.)

Update: How could I forget Chuck Todd?

• He's got 1.5 million individual contributors...and we're still in the primary.
• He has endured an assault from the GOP, his Democratic opponent, and the MSM -- and he is still winning the nomination battled.
• He's locked up the democratically selected pledged delegate victory (even if you include Mich. and Fla.)
• The only way his opponent can win is if 80% of choose to overturn the vote.
• He's working to unite the Democratic Party to take on John McCain.
• He is expanding the electoral map.
• He respects the American people enough to tell the truth.
• He is the future.

Now, superdelegates, we need you to make a decision -- for the good of the party and for the good of your country.

Superdelegates, your time is now.

Per First Read, Barack Obama now has 1,750 delegates and Clinton has 1,611. Factor in the Pelosi club, and it is 1,757 to 1,610. Let's assume that tomorrow Barack Obama nets 95 delegates and Clinton nets 92. That will put him 172 short of the nomination by the end of the night, even with no new superdelegate endorsements. At that point, he will need just 35% of the remaining delegates.

How will he chase down those remaining 172 delegates? Well, there will be 217 more pledged delegates yet to be selected. He should win at least 100 of them (probably more). That means he'll need to win over 72 of the 264 undeclared superdelegates -- 27%.

Now what are his odds of getting that 27%? Let's take a look at the superdelegate trends from First Read:

• Since Pennsylvania, it's Obama +21, Clinton +11 (68%)
• Since Junior Tuesday, it's Obama +66, Clinton +31 (68%)
• Since Super Tuesday, it's Obama +154, Clinton +44 (78%)

I'd say his chances are pretty good.

Greg Gordon of McClatchy:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Clinton excluded nearly $24 million of her husband's earnings from Senate financial statements from 2004 through 2006, capitalizing on rules that permit senators to limit disclosures of some of their spouses' income.

John McCain is nothing if not generous. In the past few months, he's given us one hundred years in Iraq, confusion over the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, an extraordinary flip-flop on the foreclosure crisis, and 100% support for the failed Bush agenda.

Now he's giving us another gift: the inadvertent admission that the Iraq War was fought for oil. (And $4/gallon gas?) He's trying to walk it back, saying he was referring to Gulf War I, but if you listen to the context, it's hard to accept that explanation.

A pro-Republican anti-choice group is behind a robocall campaign urging pro-life Indiana voters to vote against Barack Obama in tomorrow's primary.

Especially in light of the fact that after tomorrow there will be more undeclared superdelegates than uncommitted pledged delegates, there is a certain irony to this snippet from a Reuters article yesterday:

"Let me tell you the bottom line: They don't want to make this choice if they don't have to," said Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, co-chair of the Obama campaign.

"They are trying to avoid the pain of what comes with making the choice because some of their constituents back home are going to be for the other person," he said.

"Many come up to me and say, 'Don't worry, I'm for Barack.' I say, 'When?' They say, 'Well, maybe she'll drop out.'" Maybe. Maybe not.

The very supers who most wanted to avoid the spotlight have actually put themselves directly in the middle of it. But there is still time for them to get out.

The Pelosi Club: Let voters decide

They could join the "Pelosi club" -- meaning they will agree to support the pledged delegate winner, whomever that ends up being. If they do that, when Obama secures the pledged delegate majority on May 20, voters will be seen has having decided the nomination contest.

If the supers stay on the sideline, they are much more likely to be seen as having decided the nomination, no matter how absurd or unfair such a characterization would be.

Unfortunately, not enough superdelegates appear have yet seen the wisdom in joining the Pelosi club to allow voters to put Obama over the top on May 20. Why not? Your guess is as good as mine, but it doesn't make much sense to me. By all accounts, we'll know who the nominee is by the middle of June. Wouldn't superdelegates rather have the voters be seen as having made the decision instead of them?

Still, if that's the bad news, then things are going pretty well.

While Hillary Clinton is starting to lose the confidence of her own superdelegate supporters, Barack Obama does keep plugging along in picking up superdelegates. Today alone, he's projected to pick up another six superdelegates. (I think that NBC included three of those six in the delegate math I blogged yesterday, but I'm not 100% sure.) Between the superdelegate announcements and tomorrow's gains in pledged delegates, Obama will probably need less than 170 more delegates after tomorrow's primary (taking the 7 non-Obama supporting Pelosi club members into account).

The unshakable fact is that every day that Barack Obama picks up more delegates is a good day for him. He's not running against Hillary Clinton any more -- he's running against the finish line. It's just a question of when he'll get there.

↑ Shrink post ↑

It's all good

It would be wonderful if the Hoosier State put an end to the primary, but if the polling is accurate, it looks like we're going to have to wait.

So where will we be on Wednesday morning?

First, we will be almost entirely through the process of voting -- we will have selected just over 93% of the pledged delegates going to Denver. As a result, the focus will shift onto the superdelegates. On Wednesday morning, there will be more undeclared superdelegates than unselected pledged delegates.

As for the primary calendar, the three biggest contests remaining will be Kentucky, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. (West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota are also scheduled to vote.)

But the most important thing is that by Wednesday morning, Barack Obama will have cut his overall magic number by about 1/3, to something in the range of 175 total delegates. (According to the Obama campaign, it is 273 today.)

And don't forget the campaign's next big milestone, which will be in two weeks on May 20 in Oregon, when Barack Obama a majority of the democratically selected pledged delegates.

After that point, the only way he could be denied the nomination is through coup by superdelegate.

Update: It occurs to me that I didn't make one very important point -- if, as expected, Barack Obama wins North Carolina tomorrow, he will have won the largest delegate prize remaining on the calendar. In fact, there are almost many delegates at stake in North Carolina tomorrow as there are in any two of the remaining states on the calendar -- combined.

Well, unfortunately, it seems pretty clear that Zogby's Indiana numbers from the past few days were indeed illusory. From pollster.com, here's the four most recent polls, all of which were concluded yesterday:

• ARG: Clinton +8, 53-45
• Suffolk: Clinton +6, 49-43
• SurveyUSA: Clinton +12, 54-42
• Zogby: Obama +2, 44-42

Here's the North Carolina roundup:

• ARG: Obama +8, 50-42
• InsiderAdvantage: Obama +3, 48-45
• PPP: Obama +10, 53-43
• Zogby: Obama +8, 48-40

So, looks like the expected is most likely to happen: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama wins North Carolina.

Updated numbers:

• North Carolina, SurveyUSA: Obama +5, 50-45
• Indiana, PPP: Clinton +5, 51-46

I hope TPM continues to do more of this, bringing local coverage to the national scene. It's really pretty cool (especially when you like the coverage that your seeing!).

Meanwhile, you gotta' give credit to those people who see the gas tax gambit for the gimmick that it really is. People like say Bill Clinton, circa March, 2000 (via AMERICAblog):

The problem I have with it, apart from what it might do to the Highway Trust Fund and the spending obligations that have already been incurred by the acts of Congress, the budgets, is that I’m not sure that the savings would be passed along to the consumers.

Smart words, Mr. President, smart words.

The discussion about Michigan and Florida has focused entirely on the votes that took place in both states in January, and the question has mostly been framed around whether or not we should count those votes.

I think there'd be a real problem with counting those votes. It's not just that Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan -- it's also that the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, and voters there were told their votes wouldn't count.

But let's leave aside that objection for a second, and assume that the Michigan and Florida delegations should awarded according to the votes. Where would that leave us at the end of the process?

Since what we care about is "counting the vote," let's start with the pledged delegates which represent the will of the people:

• Currently, Barack Obama has 1,492 (52%) pledged delegates and Hillary Clinton has 1,338 (47%)
• A realistic yet conservative (from Obama's point-of-view) projection for the remaining sanctioned contests would have Clinton doing better than Obama down the stretch, putting the final total at 1,690 (52%) to 1,544 (47%).
• Now let's assume the most favorable deal to Clinton imaginable -- she gets all 178 delegates that would have been awarded had the votes been sanctioned. Meanwhile, Obama gets just 107 delegates -- all of the Florida delegates plus 73% of the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates. That leaves 15 uncommitted Michigan delegates, and let's assume Clinton gets 9 and Obama gets 6.
• The final pledged delegate distribution -- in a very favorable scenario for Clinton -- would then be 1,803 (51%) for Obama and 1,729 (49%) for Clinton.

Now, I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned 51%-49% is close -- but it ain't a tie.

So why would Clinton be so interested in seating Michigan and Florida even if it won't make a difference as to who is leading the pledged delegate battle?

The reason is simple: superdelegates.

And here is where we have the bitter irony: the entire point of all the bloviating about "respecting the vote" in Michigan and Florida is to give Clinton a better shot at overturning the will of the people.

::

The last thing to consider is that as I showed above, the spread between Obama and Clinton would be about 74 delegates even under this rosiest of scenarios.

Currently, Clinton leads Obama by about 20 superdelegates. So even under this best-case scenario, she still would then need to go and win the remaining undeclared superdelegates by a 54 vote margin -- otherwise she would still fall short.

So after all this, even with Michigan and Florida, it probably wouldn't be enough. But it would drag this process out into July or August. And you know who that would make happiest, right?

John Sidney McCain.

Don't shoot me for saying this, but I thought George Stephanopoulos did a decent job during the town hall event yesterday. It was by no means any kind of excuse for his disgraceful performance during the debate, but he did ask her some tough questions -- not that she answered any of them. (The set was also boring as hell, and poor George seemed terrified of his former boss.)

As I was watching the town hall I remembered a clip from March 23 in which Stephanopoulos talked about Clinton's path to the nomination. Her keys to victory? She had to win 60%+ in Pennsylvania, plus she needed to win either North Carolina or Oregon. Otherwise, he said, "I don't think it can happen."

I'll give George some credit on this one. He was absolutely right. Clinton needed 60% in Pennsylvania and she didn't get it. Now, I don't think it can happen either. Barack Obama will win.

A South Bend, Ind. single-mom marches on Sen. Duck Hunter (From Al Rodgers' Diary)

Feel free to use this as an open thread and/or add items to the list!

Suffolk's new Indiana poll has Clinton at 49 and Obama at 43. Poblano ranks Suffolk in the middle of the pack as far reliability, slightly below par, and just ahead of Zogby.

The poll's margin of error is +/- 4 points.

Update: Interesting:

In the race for the Democratic nomination for governor, Jill Long Thompson (35 percent) led Jim Schellinger (27 percent). Meanwhile, a whopping 36 percent still have not made a choice, suggesting that some of these undecided voters will vote Republican for governor come November.

I didn't realize there was a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary. It will be very interesting to see how many more votes are cast in the presidential primary than in the gubernatorial contest. The difference should be an indicator of how many pro-McCain voters have inserted themselves in the primary.

If there are a lot of pro-McCain voters, Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is won't necessarily be the reason. There are a lot of Republicans who would rather see Clinton as president than Obama, even though they will never vote for either candidate. Even though their primary preference is heartfelt, they still should not be allowed to pick the nominee unless they plan to vote for that candidate.

First, the standard Zogby disclaimer: believe these numbers at your own risk. I've discussed Zogby's poor track record here and here and at fivethirtyeight.com, poblano ranks Zogby in the bottom halfsecond to last his reliability rankings.

Now, with that said, the new Zogby numbers are pretty much unchanged from yesterday.

• North Carolina: Obama 48% (unch), Clinton 40% (+1)
• Indiana: Obama 44% (+1), Clinton 42% (+1)

Margin of error on both polls is +/- 4.0%.

Good national numbers in the latest CBS News poll. I don't like to put too much emphasis on the horserace numbers for any one poll, but this one does have Obama leading by 12 nationally, 50-38, and it has both Democrats leading McCain by double digits, Clinton by 12, and Obama by 11.

There's also a lot of positive news about attitudes towards Obama's handling of Jeremiah Wright, which may be the reason that his net approval jumped by 9 points from 39/34 to 44/30. The biggest unresolved issue seems to be the impression (held by 47%) that Obama's "divorce" from Wright was based on political expediency, but overall 60% approved of his handling of Wright and 23% disapproved.

The most interesting numbers to me were on the gas tax holiday. 49% now think it's a bad idea compared to 45% who think it is a good idea. There's no trend line, but based on what the Clinton campaign has said about the gas tax holiday being a political winner, I have to think that this is a bit of a reversal on the numbers. Still, voters who make less than $30k support the idea, though CBS did not report to what extent.

Perhaps most importantly, 60% of independent voters thought the gas tax holiday was a bad idea, compared to 32% who favored it. Democrats also opposed it, but by a smaller margin (50 against/47 for), and Republicans favored it (58 for/37 against).

Ben Smith catches Annie Oakley's gun-mailer gaffe:

Senator Hillary Clinton’s mailing attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record on guns appears to include a striking visual gaffe... “The gun in the photo does not exist,” said Val Forgett III, the president of Navy Arms in Martinsburg, West Virginia. ...“I find it laughable on its face,” he said. “It’s like a picture of Babe Ruth hitting right-handed.”

Apparently, strategists for Hillary Clinton (now running for Obliterator-in-Chief) are floating a "nuclear option" under which they would use their numerical advantage on the party's rules committee to jam a pro-Clinton Michigan and Florida plan down our throats.

It's an absurd plan and even if they got it passed, there's no guarantee it would work. My view is that they are simply hoping to provoke a process debate about Michigan and Florida.

The whole goal here is stoke FUD -- fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD is our enemy. They know that according to the rules that everybody agreed to at the start of this campaign, Barack Obama has this nomination locked up. So their goal is to create mayhem, to try to "reboot" the process.

My advice: put the FUD out of your mind. Keep your eyes on Obama, keep focused on the campaign at hand. Don't get distracted by temper tantrums.

I'm not saying it's totally irrelevant. In fact, it would be completely irresponsible for reporters and observers to ignore it completely. But would be an equally large mistake to overstate its importance.

So just take the news in stride, file it away. If it comes to pass -- which I don't think it will -- we've already got everything we need to fight it: us.

Here's an updated look at where the delegate math now stands as of Sunday afternoon. I used NBC's numbers for current delegate totals as they seem to be the most up-to-date and include Guam. Otherwise, the projections here are the same conservatives ones that I used early yesterday.

The number circled in red is really the most important number. Give or take a few delegates, that's the number of superdelegate endorsements Barack Obama will need to hit 2,024 total delegates. And once he's got 2,024 delegates lined up, he'll become the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee.

Also worth noting, these numbers do not include superdelegates like Rep. James Clyburn who have made it pretty clear they will support Obama, but have not formally endorsed. Likewise, it doesn't include one of Guam's recently elected superdelegates, who is likely to vote for Obama pending a recount.

::

As I've written before, I think superdelegates would be foolish to wait until after voting is done to declare who they support. In fact, it would be even better if they joined the "Pelosi club," meaning that they would support the pledged delegate winner.

By doing joining the Pelosi club, superdelegates would make it clear that it is the voters who will choose the Democratic nominee -- not political insiders. And if enough of them joined the club by May 20th, then the voters of Oregon could put Barack Obama over the the top, hitting 2,024 on the same day that he also secures the pledged delegate majority. (I haven't updated my estimate on how many supers would be needed for that, but excluding the add-on projections it would likely be in the eighties.)

There could be no better way for Barack Obama to secure the nomination than by the vote of the people, and short of an Obama sweep on Tuesday, there is no better day left on the primary calendar for doing so than on May 20.

A new Obama ad counters Clinton's attack ads:

The thing that I like the most about what Obama is doing with the gas-tax debate is that he's not allowing himself to be defined in his opponent's terms. Clinton wants this debate to make Obama seem aloof, disconnected with average people. Obama is rejecting that message, and actually turning it right around.

It's an important thing to do for Democrats. For too long, we've allowed our political opponents to dictate the terms of the debate, in large part because we've been defensive. What Obama is doing here is a small example of what Democrats should be doing on a broader range of issues: sticking to our guns, perhaps even taking some licks, but having confidence that over time, we will prevail -- because we are right.

Here's a fun segment from Barack's closing argument, made yesterday in Indianapolis, in which he pokes Clinton for not being able to find anyone to defend her gas-tax holiday other than...a lobbyist for Shell Oil:

Excerpt:

Does anyone here really trust the oil companies to give you the savings, when they could just pocket the money themselves? There's not an expert out there that believes that this is going to work. There's not an editorial out there that has said this is actually the answer to high gas prices.  In fact, my understanding is, today, Sen. Clinton had to send out a surrogate to speak on behalf of this plan, and all she could find was, get this, a lobbyist for Shell Oil to explain how this is going to be good for consumers. It’s a Shell game. Literally.

...I'm not sure how much confidence to have in Zogby.

Here's the new numbers, based on surveys from Friday and Saturday:

• North Carolina: Obama 48%, Clinton 39%
• Indiana: Obama 43%, Clinton 41%

The North Carolina numbers aren't that far out line with other polls, but the Indiana numbers are complete outliers. In fact, Zogby is the only polling outfit to have shown Obama with a lead in any Indiana poll since April 24 -- before Wright's weekend media tour.

Between that April 24 poll and the current Zogby poll, there have been six other polls by different pollsters, all showing Clinton with a lead. Combined, those polls have averaged just under 8%.

So the Zogby Indiana numbers are not in keeping with any other poll. On the other hand, the Zogby poll is the only poll that was conducted entirely after Obama's "divorce" from Rev. Wright.

In the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary, Zogby conducted a tracking poll. Their results released on the Sunday before election day showed Clinton with a 3-point (46-43 lead). The next day, Clinton widened her lead in the poll to 48-42 and by election day the poll projected a 51-41 result, which captured the margin perfectly.

For the final bit of Zogby perspective, yesterday I noted:

In addition, Zogby doesn't have the greatest track record this season. They've polled in 11 contests, accurately picking the winner in 8. That sounds good, but if you look under the hood, Zogby has been a mostly hit or miss affair. In 5 of the 11 races, the final margin was off by double digits from Zogby's projection (OH 10, GA 13, SC 14, NH 16, and CA 21 points). In one of the races it was off by 5 points (NJ) which is pretty close. And in the other five Zogby was spot on, getting within one point in four races (NV, IA, PA, and TX) and two points in a third (MO).

So while I'm rooting for Zogby to be right, I wouldn't count on it.

I think other polls will come out today and tomorrow, and I won't be surprised if they show Clinton leading. I still predict that she'll win Indiana, but if another couple of polls confirm Zogby's numbers, perhaps we're looking at an upset.