Recently in Barack Obama Category

"'She has unleashed the gates of hell,' a longtime party leader told me. 'She's saying, "He's not one of us."'" As even former Clinton supporters look aghast at yesterday's transparent race-baiting, the supers begin to break in force for Sen. Obama. Adding to the two (Reps. Brad Miller of NC and Rick Larsen of WA) yesterday, Obama picks up Reps. Peter DeFazio of OR and Mazie Hirono of HI, DNC members Vernon Watkins (CA), Wilber Lee Jeffcoat (SC), John Gage (MD), Pilar Lujan (Guam), Ernest Espinoza (CA), and NM add-on Laurie Weahkee. In addition, Clinton's one pick-up (Rep. Chris Carney of PA, following his district) is erased by the defection of Rep. Donald Payne of NJ.

Taken altogether, this means Sen. Obama has picked up +11 to Clinton's +0 since the last update, putting him finally in the superdelegate lead. In addition, John Edwards, despite his recent claim of neutrality, now suggests he voted Obama, and even Clinton canary-in-the-coalmine Rahm Emanuel is now calling Obama "the presumptive nominee," even if he says he's not endorsing yet. In other words, the party is now backing Obama, and the Fat Lady is practicing her scales. (Clinton, of course, remains in denial.) Update: One more, Joe Johnson, DNC-VA.) Update 2: And a Saturday UAD, from Utah, Kristi Cumming. The next batch of UADs named (NY, OH) should lean Clinton, though.

You know, just when I thought Sen. Clinton realized she had been decisively beaten, and thus that it was time to beg off and let the healing begin, we get garbage like this: With West Virginia and Kentucky on the docket (and no more sizable African-American populations left on the calendar), Clinton toys dangerously with the race card yet again. "'I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,' she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article 'that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.'" Uh, riiiight. Because, as we all know, black Americans aren't hard-working at all, but rather "shiftless" and "indolent." "There's a pattern emerging here." That there is, Sen. Clinton, and your campaign seems to be on the wrong side of it.

I get it -- She was probably trying to make the same old point about her support among the white working class, and for whatever reason it came out disastrously wrong and inadvertently (I hope) conflated white and hard-working. But, even allowing for an unfortunate gaffe, this riff further illustrates the Clinton campaign's troubling penchant for denigrating African-American votes as less important than those of white folk. Simply put, they're not -- a vote is a vote is a vote, and Obama has more of them, eggheads, African-Americans, you name it. Nor do I agree with the dubious contention that white working-class voters who have backed Clinton in the primary will go for McCain in the general en masse. As I said here, when it comes to primaries and generals, we're talking apples and oranges. Past performance is no indicator of future success, or failure.

Just to do this properly, Sen. Obama wins North Carolina by 14 and comes within 2 in Indiana, effectively ending the race for the Democratic nomination. (Yes, it was already over, but now it's really, really over.) When I got home late last night, Clinton had cancelled all of her public appearances, and it seemed reality had finally set in. But, no, word this morning is she will press on, and continue to burn money and goodwill for no apparent reason. Still, even if her campaign remains gracelessly in denial, I'd expect high-profile Clinton supporters will soon close the deal for her regardless. (Former Clinton backer George McGovern, for one, has now switched to Obama and is urging her concession.) So, the upshot is we're done here, folks. It's all over but the cryin'. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is our Democratic nominee.

Update: Sen. Obama picks up four more supers (one formerly a Clinton supporter, so it's Obama +5 to Clinton's +1), while Sen. Clinton's Senate backers start looking for the exit. And May 20 is the new May 6.

Heya...just got home from an extended academic function. But...NC by 14, IN by 2? We're done. It's over. IT IS OVER, and not a moment too soon.

More tomorrow.

If you live in North Carolina or Indiana, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. (And to the Tar Heels: my home state of South Carolina went for Obama by 28: If you can't represent at least somewhat similarly -- and right now the polls are saying single-digits -- I consider the contest between us closed.)

"Elizabeth Edwards likes Hillary Clinton's plan for universal health insurance. Husband John Edwards doesn't much care for Clinton's 'old politics.' So goes the his-and-her debate in the Edwards household." In a new interview with People magazine, John and Elizabeth Edwards announce they're staying neutral. "Bottom line: the couple said they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care."

To which I feel compelled to ask: What political capital? Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have Barack Obama, the "change" candidate who has had the nomination in the bag, mathematically speaking, for several months now. On the other, we have Hillary Clinton, the candidate whose campaign Edwards himself memorably deemed "the forces of status quo," and who has left no GOP tactic untried to hack and slash a path to the nomination. And the Edwardses are neutral? That's not statesmanship. That is political cowardice, pure and simple.

I mean, this isn't a huge surprise: It's been an open secret for awhile that the Edwardses would likely stay neutral, partly (if not mainly) on account of Elizabeth's personal issues with the Obama candidacy. Still, I thought they'd eventually rise above their pique and get on board with the "change" they'd espoused for months and months on end. I've lost count of the number of times I've personally defended Edwards (usually from the children of doctors, who've been indoctrinated with the idea that malpractice lawsuits rank just below genocide on the list of Crimes Against Humanity, and thus that Edwards is merely some kind of rank profiteer living off their dear parents' hard work.) I applauded his candidacy in 2008, and even voted for the guy in 2004. But, really, this is the kiss-off: If they still can't manage to bring themselves off the fence at this late hour, I just can't take either of them seriously anymore as leaders or progressives. "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists." As TPM noted, we seem to have finally reached the point where there are "no more sharks left to jump." For alas, Sen. Clinton's final, fraying tether to the reality-based community (and my general election vote, not that she'll be getting that far anyway) gave up its last this weekend, as she -- in defiance of her usual m.o. and very much in the manner of Dubya and the GOP -- deemed universal opposition to her gas tax pander to be merely a figment of "elite opinion". (She's also doubled down on her anti-Obama gas tax ads.) As Robert Reich noted: "In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies." (Rabid Clinton partisan Paul Krugman, also a member of the elite-economist cabal, has yet to weigh in on his being cast down as an enemy of the people.)

As it turns out, one of the salt-of-the earth proles at the event (self-identified as an Obama voter making less than $25,000 a year) called Clinton out to her face for this blatant idiocy: "'I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax,' the woman said, adding: 'Call me crazy but I actually listen to economists because I think they know what they've studied.'" Clearly, this woman will be requiring significant reeducation. "'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.' 'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'" (Give Clinton credit: Her campaign has been a travesty, but it's been great fodder for Orwell references around here.)

In any case, regarding the big picture: Unfortunately for earlier hopes that we'd be done May 6, it's looking like tomorrow will almost assuredly bring a split, with NC for Obama and IN for Clinton. (That is, unless Zogby has finally broke out of its slump this cycle.) Meaning, of course, that Clinton will be even more mathematically eliminated. And yet, in all likelihood, we'll slog on to June 3. Yay. (With that in mind, each side picked up another super today: Kalyn Free of OK for Obama and Theresa Morelli of Dems Abroad for Clinton. But as Morelli only counts for 1/2 a vote, that's another 1/2-vote pick up for Obama.)

Update: make that two and a half: Obama picks up two more MD supers, Michael Cryor and Lauren Dugas-Glover. And it sounds like some of Clinton's CA supers are reconsidering their options.

Update 2: Apparently, economists still mattered in 1992.

Thank you, Hagatna: Sen. Obama wins the Guam presidential caucuses by seven votes, 50.1%-49.9%. (This means a 2-2 delegate split, but also puts Obama two closer to the magic number of 2025.)

On the super side, Obama picks up Brian Colon of NM, Inez Tenenbaum of SC, and Parris Glendening of MD (the latter two are UADs.) Clinton, meanwhile, gets Jaime Gonzalez of TX and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend of MD (also a UAD). So the day's super tally: Obama +3, Clinton +2. Adding 'em to the post-PA super count, that puts us at Obama 17, Clinton 11 (or Clinton down 23 from her needed 2-1 split.)

You know all the media hype we've been hearing of late about Obama's presumed troubles with white voters? According to a study by NYT columnist Charles Blow, the numbers don't bear it out. In fact, quite the converse: "The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much. On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period). While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways." That it does. (See also Rural Votes.)

You've probably already seen this making the rounds today. But since it's definitely in GitM's wheelhouse, The Empire Strikes Barack. A few inspired moments therein: the cantina, Admirals Ozzel (Penn) and Motti (Dean), Emperor Bubba, the media barrage, etc.

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Do you remember the Iraq War of 2003? Remember those heady days of euphoria when it ended two months later, with only 139 American lives lost? Journey back with me -- TIME-LIFE style, if you will -- to the scene of our triumph: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a 'hero' and boomed, 'He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.' PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was 'part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.' On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, 'The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.'"

Well, today marks the five-year anniversary of our glorious victory, the day that "splendid little war" came to a close. Among those honoring the day, and the remarkable achievement of our Commander-in-Chief:

"'He has shown such mettle under fire,' Andrew said in the interview. 'The Jeremiah Wright controversy just reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party.'" A Clinton endorser since Day 1 of her candidacy, former DNC Chair Joe Andrew switches to Sen. Obama, and is ready for the fallout."If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a 'Judas' for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton." Heh.

Throw in DNC member John Patrick of Texas for Obama and AFL-CIO head John Olson of CT for Clinton and that puts our post-PA super count at Obama 11-5. Once you add the automatic add-ons from NY (Clinton +4) and IL (Obama +3), Clinton is down nineteen from her needed 2-1 split. Clinton -5, -10, -13, -19...anyone else noticing a pattern?

"I don't think it's brilliant economics; unfortunately, it may be good politics. The smart people say 'It's stupid,' and the people who aren't as schooled say 'At least it will do something for me,'...I don't know that anyone connects the dots: that there have been a series of politically expedient decisions...that have added up to an economic picture that is not at all rosy and in fact fairly disastrous." In an A-1 story this morning, the WP joins the recent general calumny against the Clinton-McCain gas tax cut (which Clinton is now campaigning heavily on in IN and NC -- Obama is now pushing back on TV.) "'You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut,' said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington." Indeed, it's apparently such a dumb idea that even diehard Clinton cheerleader Paul Krugman is forced to concede thus. Of course, the reality of the situation hasn't stopped Bill Clinton from entering full-Pander Bear mode on the issue.

Update: Clinton doubles down, and introduces legislation promoting McCain's lousy idea in the Senate. Responded Obama: "It's a Shell game, literally."

Her 41 supermarket moment? As if I needed another reason not to vote Clinton: Though she may knock back boilermakers like us regular joes, the Senator has in fact never heard of Red Bull, the fantabulously addictive breakfast beverage which more often than not constitutes the best moment of my day. (This also means Clinton has lost another excuse for voicing her obliteration-happy nuclear ambitions last week...It wasn't the taurine talking.)

In other key findings: "Her fantasy date would be with President Abraham Lincoln [to which Sybil says back off!] She refused to choose between comedians Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, said she likes both wine and beer, and wouldn't select either 'American Idol' or 'Dancing With the Stars'; she said her mother -- who lives with the Clintons -- keeps her up to speed on both programs." (The answers, as everyone not running for office knows, is Fey, beer, and neither -- both are garbage, not that I'd expect someone who prefers Grey's Anatomy to The Wire (as per Obama) and spends her free time trying to ban Grand Theft Auto to pick up on that.)

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I might not know him as well as I thought, either." After an unrepentant Jeremiah Wright ratcheted up the heat again at the National Press Club yesterday, thus bringing the punditariat to a full boil, an "outraged" and "saddened" Sen. Obama definitively cuts Wright loose.

A bit depressing that this had to go down, but, at this point, Obama really didn't have much choice. (Wright was practically begging for it, what with promoting the AIDS and Farrakhan stuff anew yesterday.) So, hopefully this helps bring an end to the sad diversion that was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Now, perhaps we can move on to other matters, such as the Rev. John Hagee and the "Strangelovian" obliteration of Iran...

Update: While we all mull the fallout from Wrightgate II, consider this: Sen. Obama picked up two more superdelegates today, Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky and DNC member Richard Machachek of Iowa. I believe that puts the post-PA total at 6 for Obama, 2 for Clinton, meaning Sen. Clinton is now a full 10 behind where she needs to be to stay "alive."

Update 2: Count three more supers for Clinton, and now three more for Sen. Obama. The new post-PA tally: 9 for Obama, 5 for Clinton, meaning Clinton is down 13 from her needed mark.

"To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction. I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction." Along with Roger Waters and the Pink Floyd pig, Sen. Obama picks up another Senate super in New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman, thus putting him in the lead among his and Sen. Clinton's colleagues. Update: Clinton counters with NC Governor Mike Easley.

Meanwhile, over the weekend Matt Drudge ventured into the Wayback Machine to examine superdelegates' issues...with Bill Clinton in 1992. "'The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him,' Mr. Eckart said. 'Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats.'" Cut to 2008, where, thanks to his recent transgressions, undeclared supers -- particularly African-American supers like my old rep, Jim Clyburn -- still don't think much of the man. "How do you play the race card on the ex-president of the United States? How do you do it? I would like to know how that's done and who they [are]. And I'd like to see these memos he's talking about. That's what's so bizarre about this,' Clyburn said". (Nor, it seems, is Pres. Clinton a fan of Obama, but that's not really surprising at this point, is it?)

"I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from sound bites...I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?" I haven't watched the Sunday shows yet, but, if today's press is any indication, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the big story in the news, after he delivered remarks in several venues aimed at defending himself against the recent media throng, as well as horrifying attempts by the like of George Stephanopoulos to McCarthify him on national television. (As I said here, we seem to have entirely skipped the rails when kindly ole Mike Huckabee is the biggest voice for tolerance and historical understanding in the conversation.)

At any rate, the return of Obama's Angry Black Preacher-Man prompted tut-tuts of electoral worry from Clinton-leaning concern trolls like like Salon's Joan Walsh, and the usual waiting for the other-shoe-to-drop from breathless political blogs like War Room and Ben Smith. What I haven't seen yet today, amid all the puttering from the press on the subject of Wright, is any attempt to put the Reverend's remarks in context of this weekend's highly dubious acquittal in the Sean Bell case. To wit, New York City cops shoot an unarmed black man and his friends 50 times and end up getting off for it, and, outside of Harlem, there's barely a shrug, including in the news media. Meanwhile, when it comes to anything and everything involving the fates of Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, and any other white damsel in distress, the press drone on about it endlessly, funnelling info to us months or even years after the cases have gone cold. But, as they say, this ain't Aruba, b**ch.

Is Rev. Wright angry? At this point, and as this weekend's fiasco makes clear, he has every right to be. Perhaps the press and the punditocracy could investigate more thoroughly why black America may be less inclined to think well of our nation at times, rather than working themselves into yet another holier-than-thou froth about occasional intemperate remarks, and/or endlessly fretting about their potential impact on the electoral whims of the white working class. God forbid these media asshats break out of their echo chamber bubble once in awhile and do some honest-to-goodness reporting. Heck, I'd be happy just to see a few of 'em think for themselves.

"In an interview yesterday, Hillary -- whose connection to President Clinton's 2001 sentence commutations for two members of the Weather Underground has become an issue since she tried to raise questions about Obama's acquaintance with another ex-Weatherman -- told 'Inside Edition' that she 'didn't know anything about' the 2001 clemency case...If it's true, it means that she got the worst briefings in the world when she was running for Senate in 2000 and the clemency issue was hot in Rockland County, and it means that Chuck Schumer didn't even bother to mention the issue to his fellow NY senator-elect/ First Lady after promising the widows of two dead cops to fight against one of the clemencies." Following her recent attempt to make hay from the Weathermen, Sen. Clinton gets caught in another obvious lie. Oops.

Meanwhile, following on the two he picked up yesterday, Sen. Obama scores another superdelegate in Oregon rep David Wu. "'We need new policies both at home and abroad,' Wu said in a statement. 'Like Americans, the international community wants to see real change in America and I believe that Senator Obama embodies that change.'" As you probably know, Sen. Clinton needs the superdelegates to break 2-1 her way from now herein for the comeback math to make any sense at all. So, since Pennsylvania (1 for Clinton, 3 for Obama), she's already 5 down on where she needs to be.

"Yet for all of her primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind." Are the media finally going after the Clinton camp's last, sad buttress? In tomorrow's NYT, Patrick Healy pushes back against the dubious Clinton claim that she'll run better in the "big states" based on the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. "According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones -- just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries. And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women." In other words, when it comes to comparing primary and general election performance, we're basically talking apples and oranges. (Just ask Al Gore.)

First we had Senator Clinton adopting various Hail Mary Rovianisms, which have been well recorded here, including but not nearly limited to an ad featuring Osama Bin Laden just this past week. Then Bill went on the Rush Limbaugh show. Then Sen. Clinton played nice with Richard Mellon Scaife, architect of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," for his endorsement. And now we have this:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election." Disgusted by recent events, such as the Osama ad and the warnings of "obliteration", the NYT editorial board for all intent and purposes unendorses Sen. Clinton.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama open the post-PA era with another super endorsement, Gov. Brad Henry of OK. "Senator Obama understands that the serious concerns facing average Americans must transcend partisan games if we are to rise to the challenges of today and tomorrow. He is a strong, committed and inspirational leader, ideally suited to bring together Democrats, independents and Republicans," Henry said." Update: Clinton gets one too: Tennessee Congressman John Tanner, while Obama counters with 49 high-profile Edwards supporters in NC.

Well, I'm sure you watched it too. But, anyway, to recap: In tonight's big contest, the two race horses started out neck-and-neck, and it looked in the early going that an upset might be in order. But, slowly but surely, the plodding, methodical contender pulled away for a small but convincing victory, and that's all she wrote. I'm referring, of course, to Game 2 of the Suns-Spurs series. Why, was there something else going on?

(By the way, in case you didn't know, I'm not sure of the Obama analogue yet, but the San Antonio Spurs are definitely the Clintons of the NBA. Tim Duncan's the Bill of the bunch, the natural talent (with past championships to his name) who whines and works the refs constantly. Bruce Bowen is Hillary, a less-talented workhorse whom people in the media describe with euphemisms like "tenacious", when he's clearly and obviously just a dirty player. And, like the rest of the Clinton campaign, Parker and Ginobli are basically slashers...but let's not belabor it too much.)

At any rate, so, yes, in a huge shocker Senator Clinton won Pennsylvania by ten this evening, 55%-45%. [Update: Since it seems to have confused some Clinton-leaning folk on other blogs, I meant "huge shocker" ironically. See below.] We'll know the delegate spread tomorrow, but, however it turns out and like Ohio six weeks ago, tonight is just another case of Clinton winning the battle and losing the war: There's no way at all she gets enough delegates to become viable again. Simply put, Sen. Obama's previously insurmountable delegate lead is now, to coin a phrase, even insurmountabler. Do I need to link the same post again?

Nevertheless, if you're looking for someone to blame for Obama's loss tonight, look no further than Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love broke from the rest of the state and went 2-1 for Obama. And, as every sports fan knows, Philly always loses despite themselves. You can't fight the curse.

In any case, I'd been girding myself for a 15-point margin for Sen. Clinton of late, so, in the grand scheme of things, 55-45 was fine with me (particularly given that the contest seems to have cost Clinton what was left of her bankroll.) So, now, on to Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, where hopefully this primary -- finally -- comes to an end. Eat, drink, and be merry, Clinton folk, for tomorrow, your candidacy of choice dies.

Update: They're still tallying the delegates, but it's looking like Clinton will remain behind by around 150 pledged delegates overall. In the meantime, Al Giordano crunches the exit poll numbers: "Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote...Whether or not the commercial media spins it that way - in her campaign’s lexicon - 'doesn’t matter.' And ye shall know the dumbest and slowest - and intentionally dishonest - political reporters, pundits, bloggers (and former presidential candidates and spouses) by those that argue otherwise."

Update 2: It ain't over yet. This (pre-PA) Youtube suggests a potential path to victory for Clinton. (Here's a hint: The Hartford Convention.)

'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood, when blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud." Well, actually, it was only six weeks ago, just after Mississippi. (It only seems like a lifetime.) Still, I posted then, following Al Giordano at Rural Votes, to beware Pennsylvania tunnel vision, as it's a state tailor-made for Clinton's demographic strengths. Six long, miserable weeks later, after Jeremiah Wright and The Speech and Tuzla snipers and the Bitter pill, we've finally made it to PA Day, and what I wrote then still holds true. Given the polls and the probable Limbaugh shenanigans in Pennsyltucky, Clinton will almost assuredly win the Keystone State by double digits tonight, and yet still won't amass enough delegates to make a bit of difference in the final decision. And, because the media still won't call the race (and, indeed, resent even the slightest implication that they're lazy and f**king pathetic at their line of work), we will grimly slog on to May 6th, watching enviously as McCain and the GOP dance their happy jig of Dem self-immolation. (Don't get me wrong: I still think Obama will trounce McCain thoroughly in November. But it's going to be much harder than it ever needed to be.)

Was that magical night in Iowa really less than four months ago? It seems since then that we Obama-leaning political junkies are being punished by the Clinton campaign for the sin of putting too much faith in the process, and have been consigned to a neverending Purgatory of endless lowballs and trifling media idiocies. In a different world, I might have been flabbergasted by Clinton shoehorning Pearl Harbor and Bin Laden into a political ad against a fellow Democrat. But, at this late date, did anyone really expect anything less? Give it a few more weeks and the Clinton campaign will likely be regaling us with D.W. Griffith and guys in blackface. And it will still be over. Update: By way of Dangerous Meta, Sen. Clinton also attempted to recertify her cajones this morning by threatening to "obliterate" Iran. Dubya much, Senator?

At any rate, if you are of the Pennsylvanian persuasion, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. Let's get focused on our real opponent, already.

“I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along." It's not a lie if you believe it, right, Mr. President? I've grown bored with trying to keep track of all the myriad ways Bill Clinton has continually embarrassed himself in recent months. But, since I'm blogging today and as per his "mugging", former President Clinton whines further about the reaction to his unfortunate Jesse Jackson comparison, citing once again a vast Obama conspiracy and now memos that do not exist. (In his own mind, he probably meant the Amaya Smith memo during the MLK/LBJ uproar, which, of course, had nothing to do with Clinton's idiotic remarks.) The former president also said he couldn't have said anything racist because he has an office in Harlem. Uh, I live in Harlem...I didn't realize that constituted a free pass for us white folk to spout ignorant and dismissive bromides whenever it's politically expedient.

Not realizing the mic was still on, Clinton later scoffed to an aide during the interview, “I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?" Actually, Bill, you really, really should.

Update: Now, in full defiance of the audio, he's denying he said it. "Outside a Pittsburgh campaign event, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant 'when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?' Clinton responded: 'When did I say that and to whom did I say that?'" (Can you find the Clintonian distortion? I'm guessing it's "played" versus "was playing," but who knows how the man's mind works?)

"'Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,' Clinton said to a meeting of donors. 'We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. [sic] I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.'"

As Sen. Obama racks up the endorsements of Robert Reich, Sam Nunn, and David Boren, Sen. Clinton gets her own private fundraiser gaffe: To wit, audio surfaces of her blaming the netroots and "activists" for her dismal showings thus far. Well, I'm sure that'll go over like gangbusters. (By the way, if you're keeping score at home, it's now screw the southern whites, screw the red states, screw the insignificant states, screw the impressionable elites, and now screw the netroots. But, if you're a white working-class northerner without an Internet connection, you're the bedrock of the nation, and no mistake.)

You don't need The Weathermen to know which way the wind blows: This thing is over, and has been for weeks and weeks now. But, ABC held a debate tonight in Philadelphia anyway, and, man, it was a tough slog. [Transcript.] Moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos endlessly trafficked in inanities. (The Weather Underground? Really?) Sen. Clinton found no level she couldn't passive-aggressively sink beneath: Cringeworthy throughout, she name-dropped Farrakhan and channeled 9iu11iani whenever possible (see, for example, her answers on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and she got in Ahmadinejad's recent remarks as well.) And Sen. Obama seemed tired, a bit rusty, and, after 45 shallow minutes of idiotic gotcha, (justifiably) ticked. (But I thought he still came through in the clutch anyway.)

The only news made tonight? ABC is rather terrible at this whole debate thing. Tonight was basically a fiasco. From Stephanopoulos questioning Obama on flag pins to the tut-tutting about affirmative action to George getting questions from Sean Hannity to Gibson trying to wrest a "no new taxes" pledge from the candidates, virtually every minute tonight was occupied with trite Republican nonsense. Oh, and Gibson's dim remark at the Manchester debate that two-professor families make $200,000 a year was not a fluke. Apparently, the guy knows less about the economy than John McCain. Tonight he informed us that there "are a heck of a lot of people" making between $97,000 and $200,000 these days. If by "heck of a lot" you mean 14% of the US, well, ok. But some might consider 1 in 7 a rather small minority of the total population, and thus argue that our tax policy should keep the other, more-likely-to-be-struggling 6 out of 7 in mind. Sheesh...less than a week and our friends in the pundit world have already abandoned their newfound blue-collar bitterness.

At any rate, no news or game-changers to speak of. Sen. Obama is still our nominee, Sen. Clinton is still grappling with that fact. If you didn't watch this tonight, you chose wisely. Update: Having run ABC's gauntlet of idiocy, Obama brushes his shoulders off, puts distractions on notice, and says no to more debates.

"Clinton is viewed as 'honest and trustworthy' by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy." Who's bitter now? A new poll finds that a solid majority of voters now believes Sen. Clinton is dishonest. "And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards." In other words, all the shenanigans of the past few months seem to have made her unelectable. Oops.

Hey all. As promised, I've been working on other things over the past few days, and thus haven't really been following the election news as closely as in recent months. I'd heard that Sen. Obama had basically restated the thesis of What's the Matter with Kansas? at a fundraiser in San Francisco, and thought that, lordy, it was a slow news week. So, imagine my surprise when I settled in for the Sunday shows to discover that I was supposed to be outraged -- outraged, I tell you! -- at the import and tenor of Sen. Obama's remarks. Across the board, the Washington punditariat had ratcheted up the pique to 11, lambasting Obama for being elitist and out-of-touch because he argued a case for the appeal of cultural conservatism in economic bad times that's been made all over the place, not the least by the Clintons themselves. (By the way, this televised uprising of the pundit proletariat included several people I dealt with personally during my previous sojourn in DC and, well...let's just say I wasn't buying their newly-discovered blue-collar bona fides. Not. One. Bit. (and I'm not talking about Carville & Matalin, although they were in the mix on Sunday too.))

Enter Sen. Clinton, shameless as ever. Apparently seeing "Bitter-gate" as her last, best hope for the nomination, she's plumbed new depths of self-parody this week, not only calling Obama an elitist but trying to recast herself as some kind of working-class hero. (I guess she assumed we'd all just forget that she made $109 million over the past seven years, has been running around with a Secret Service detail for nearly two decades, and has had people otherwise waiting on her since 1978. Springsteen, she's not.) Nope, now she's banging back boilermakers, attacking Obama like he's the Second Coming of John Kerry (to the point of getting booed for it) and conjuring up this ridiculous ad of small-town folk aghast by Obama's words.

Well, I guess I'm an out-of-touch elitist too, because, frankly, I'm just not seeing it. Not only does this entire brouhaha seems like a completely media-manufactured (and Clinton-prolonged) event to me, but I'd be highly surprised if the vast majority of people Obama was referring to take any offense whatsoever. In fact, if anything, I'd bet the people who are supposed to feel so put upon here may well end up feeling more condescended to by Clinton and the mass media for trying to tell them they should be ticked off. Just a hunch...I could be very wrong. With fifteen years and counting in BosWash, it's been awhile since I've had my finger on the pulse of the Heartland. Still, I'm willing to bet that the white working-class Americans who are theoretically insulted by Obama's words are smarter, and made of sterner stuff, than Clinton et al would give them credit for. And this too shall pass.

Update: Speaking of Springsteen, the Boss endorses Obama, in part due to Bitter-gate. "At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment."

"Judging from Gen. David Petraeus' Senate testimony today, our military commitment to Iraq is open-ended and unconditional...Their unwavering stance amounted to this: Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn't ponder further pullouts." Slate's Fred Kaplan takes the measure of yesterday's Petraeus hearings, and the performances of Senators Obama [transcript | video], Clinton and McCain respectively. "Near the end of the afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' likely presidential nominee but a junior member of the foreign relations committee, finally got his turn to ask questions -- and he homed in on one of the administration's key conceptual failures...'I'm trying to get to an end point,' he said. 'That's what all of us are trying to do.' This is what many critics and thoughtful supporters of the war have been trying to do for five years now. The Bush administration hasn't addressed the issue. And, ultimately, neither did Petraeus or Crocker today."

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign." With Colombia-gate the straw that finally leveled the proverbial dromedary, Mark Penn is gone from Team Clinton. Better late than never, I suppose, but this would've been more helpful if done several months ago. And isn't the captain supposed to go down with the ship?

Well, victory may have been a macrotrend that eluded Penn's grasp. Still, if nothing else, we'll always have his ridiculous post-mortem spin jobs. Of "Impressionable elites," "insignificant states," and useless primaries, at least one might be remembered someday as a 2008 campaign catch-phrase. Update: The Field also feels a Titanic motif.

"'I have a sneaking suspicion it's over after North Carolina and Indiana,' says Emanuel. 'It will be clear by then who the presumptive nominee is.'" In keeping with this analysis, Clinton confidant Rep. Rahm Emanuel argues the primary race will be over on May 6. Since Bill Clinton has recently deemed North Carolina a make-or-break state akin to Texas and Ohio, and since Obama currently leads in Tarheel country by an average of 13 points, a May 6 end to proceedings now seems like a solid bet.

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated, and I am sorry for it." Clinton consigliere and inveterate torturer of reason Mark Penn gets into trouble for playing both sides of a Colombian trade deal, is forced to apologize, and subsequently gets sacked by the nation in question. If only Sen. Clinton had followed Colombia's example months ago, she might still have a shot at the presidency right now.

In related news, Al Giordano of Rural Votes explains why Colombian president Alvaro Uribe is rooting against Obama, and why that speaks