Pour Another, My Friends, Pour Another

Quote of the day, straight from a very high ledge packed with Obama-rooting national media types:

I just had a Jager shot, and hope to get drunk very soon. So this is my last post of the night. Here's what I'll do in the morning: find out who won the most delegates in the March 4 states, and check someone else's math (yes, I'm not going to get it wrong myself) to see who subsequently has the numbers to win. And then take a deep breath. And say what I think. Right now, emotion clouds the mind. Oh, and Jager.

That's young Andrew Sullivan in the august Atlantic, just trying to get himself through another political night. More later, my friends, on last night's somewhat shocking results - and where we go from here. But the short version is this: what fun. What great fun.

Comments

[bruce b.]

MSNBC was APPALLING last night in their coverage. All they could talk about was how TERRIBLE this was and what terrible things would happen if Hillary did not get out of the race. Nothing about her surprisingly large margins in Ohio and RI. If it was Obama winning, there would have been nothing but oohing and aahing.

Shame on you, Rachel Maddow. Shame on you, Keith Olbermann.

And this business about how "impossible" it is for Hillary to win the nomination without some form of "cheating"... whadda bunch of bs. NOONE can win without the superdelegates.

It is a very close race, across the board.

[Tom W.]

Bruce - you're entirely correct. They were in league with the Obama folks to try and tamp down any Clinton momentum from last night - ironically, only the true veteran (Brokaw) and the conservative (Scarborough) played it down the middle.

But I mainly watched CNN - MSNBC has lost my allegiance, they've damaged their brand. Besides, CNN has those cool state/county screen things.....very high-tech.

[Ralph]

Question: should Michigan and Florida be allowed to conduct new primaries -- that will count towards winning delegates? I think yes.

[Tom W.]

Ralph - I agree, as long as they're big turn-out primaries and not small caucuses. Getting more Democrats involved in this process is great for the fall, and both candidates would have a shot to argue they knew how to close out major states. I'm totally for it.

[Ralph]

Tom, I suggest that you read Jonathan Alter's recent article "Hillary’s Math Problem" which shows that even if she wins all the upcoming primaries, she still will not have enough elected delegates to win the nomination:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

[Tom W.]

I know the math Ralph - the very same math that shows Obama can't get to 2,025. So, she won't have enough and he won't have enough.

A "lead" is not a substitution for winning it. Voters have decided exactly nothing yet - and then there's the question of the caucuses, and how they can allow a weaker candidate to rack up delegates.

Unless there's a deal, I see this going at least to a 2nd ballot in Denver.

[Muataman]

What I don't understand in light of the fact that Hillary's comeback means a lot more interest and a lot more viewers for MSNBC in the months ahead, why wouldn't they welcome it? Are their anti-Clinton feelings so strong that it trumps even profit? What am I missing here?

[Ralph]

Um, you're missing the fact that Hillary's negatives have always been the highest of any of the Democratic candidates. I'm not saying that's fair, or right -- just the facts.

[zeke]

MSNBC may be in the tank for Obama. I'll buy that, even though Matthews is probably more in McCain's tank than Obama's and Chuck Todd plays it right down the middle. But from where I sit, it is refreshing to have at least one media outlet biased in favor of the best candidate. And Matthews notwithstanding, I don't think this percieved press bias in favor of Obama has anything to do with misogyny or innate Clinton-hatred.

Clinton was, by most objective standards, near the bottom of the pack of Democrats vying for the nomination at the beginning - certainly less experienced than Dodd, Richardson and Biden, and with much higher negatives than any of her opponents. She had the albatross of her Iraq vote around her neck, and in the "experience" column was prominently listed her spectacular failure to reform healthcare. But she benefitted mightily from the media narrative of the moment, i.e. her inevitability, and from her connections to a certain former president.

Now that the press has realized that Clinton is not truly inevitable, the narrative has changed again. It has taken a direction that Clinton and her acolytes are not happy about. Is it fair? Probably not. No more than it was fair that, with her mantle of inevitability, Clinton was able to push more experienced, more progressive, and more charismatic candidates out of the race.

But if she eventually loses to Obama, it won't be because of media bias. It will be because Obama has run a better campaign. End of story.

[Muataman]

"But if she eventually loses to Obama, it won't be because of media bias. It will be because Obama has run a better campaign. End of story."

Just like Bush ran a better campaign than Gore did in 2000? Its usually because of media bias and to think otherwise is inceredibly naive.

[bruce b.]

Ralph, Jonathan Alter's "Hillary's Math" column was terribly biased. As Tom has pointed out, NEITHER candidate can get to 2,025 very easily (or at all). So OBVIOUSLY it comes down to superdelegates and possibly bringing Florida and Michigan back into the fold, perhaps through a do-over. Why is this ONLY Hillary's problem?

Does Alter seriously believe that if Clinton now goes on a big winning streak (I am not saying she will -- but IF) and Obama falters, the superdelegates won't start to stampede in her direction? OBVIOUSLY there are plausible and possible scenarios where she can take the nomination. Were these so hard to figure out before Ohio/Texas/RI?

A funny, and perhaps telling, story: My 94 year old mother, a big Hillary supporter, fell and broke her hip recently, so she is in a rehab hospital on Cape Cod. (Everything is going well with her rehab.) She told me the story that early this AM she was in one of the physical therapy rooms with a group of other patients, all women over 80, and some of the female therapists and nurses. The patients had not been informed of the results last night. One of the doctors came in and announced that Hillary had won. the Rehab room broke into spontaneous and loud applause -- including almost all the patients, AND the young female health care professionals.

So Obama has his college campuses... but Hillary has her demographic base as well.

[zeke]

Muataman,

You intentionally misunderstand me. Nowhere did I say that media bias cannot or has not affected the outcome of political races. Only that in this instance Obama has unquestionably run a better campaign, and as a result I believe he will win. He began winning primaries back when the media narrative was still that Clinton was unstoppable.

[Muataman]

Considering that he had all of the momentum on his side, all of the media support, outspent her by over 2 -1, and had some dissention in the Clinton camp, it doesn't say much for his "unquestionably run a better campaign" that he got utterly blown away in Ohio and whipped in Texas. Barak did a good job convincing a bunch of tree huggers in Iowa to vote for him, but thats when any "unstoppable" narative ended. Moreover the media has been contiuously biased and sexist toward Clinton and has handled Barak with kid gloves since the beginning of this process. Hes had quite an advantage.

[zeke]

Muataman,

A few comments:

It's Barack with a "C".

Thanks for making my point for me. Obama's campaign raises more money, has less internal dissent, and has out-organized Clinton in a majority of the states where they have competed.

Obama was not "blown away" in Ohio. He lost by half of the margin projected by the polls a couple of weeks ago. Texas is more or less a stand-off in terms of delegates won. Now Vermont was a blow-out.

Finally, Iowa is a farm state where trees (and tree-huggers) are thin on the ground.

Cheers

[Ralph]

If only Gore had listened to me and run for President, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Judith]

zeke - Obama is sinking fast. Blew boatloads of casheroo and couldnt beat Clinton in one big state. She creamed him last week and she will cream him in PA and Puerto Rico. The guy is o.v.e.r. We will play it out for s long time yet but the idea that the guy who didnt do his current job wants to move up the chain of command leaves a whole lotta people unimpressed and they didnt vote for him. And it is going to get worse.

and I am a latte loving liberal, baby. Pass me the sugarfree vanilla syrup and a straw.

[zeke]

Judith,

I'd take it easy on the gloating until the fat lady sings. And as for people who "didn't do their job," where was Hillary when the time came to stand up to George W. Bush on Iraq or Joe (crypto-Republican) Lieberman on Iran?

Best,

Zeke

[judith]

zeke - so stating a position at odds with yours is "gloating"? That is a tad emotional of you.
But hey, if you need to divert attention by changing the subject away from Obama slipping down the hill on his own goo be my guest. But I dont want to get anything on my shoes so I'll take a pass. :-)