Things to Do Before Denver (or We’re Dead).

“The good news is that an ugly convention fight is highly preventable. The one advantage of a scenario that’s both completely hair-raising and utterly foreseeable is that everyone has an incentive to stop it. The bad news is what’s not preventable: a contest that rolls into June. Even without a messy convention, the current trajectory of the primary campaign could easily destroy the party’s White House prospects.” TNR‘s Noam Scheiber grimly surveys the Democratic endgame. I actually think it’ll be over sooner rather than later, given that [a] the press finally seems to be internalizing the math, [b] the Clinton campaign seems to be running out of money, and [c] the Richardson endorsement would seem to indicate that the supers are losing patience. Still, worth a read, and the Clinton-Obama hybrid pic (now gracing TNR’s cover) is just about the creepiest thing I’ve seen all day.

Get to know the new metric…or else.

“In the beginning, it was about momentum. When she lost momentum, it was about pledged delegates. When she lost pledged delegates, it was about the popular vote. And now that she’s on her way to losing the popular vote, it’s about the number of electoral votes held by the states in which the candidates have won primary victories.” Comrades! Pleddel and popvote now fullwise ungood and goldstein. The new metric of our glorious success is and has always been Elecvote. Be wary of thoughtcrime, brothers and sisters. Also, chocorat going up 15%.

Speaking of Newspeak, this may work against Sen. Obama, but I feel forced to admit it: His lead in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and the number of states won notwithstanding, Sen. Clinton won every state with “New” in its name — New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. And, since the superdelegates are looking to pick a “new” president, their choice is sadly all too clear. I’d hoped and assumed Sen. Obama would be our nominee, but you just can’t argue with ironclad logic like that.

The Victim-in-Chief.

“One of the most laudable things about Obama is that he always elects to rise above the politics of victimization. One of the most troubling things about Hillary Clinton is that she is never above cashing in on it.” Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick and Melinda Hennenberger explain what Sen. Clinton might say in a “gender” speech akin to Sen. Obama’s remarks on race last week — and why she’d never deliver it. “She won’t give that speech because the whole narrative of her candidacy — and more broadly, her life — is as rooted in grievance as Obama’s is in getting past grievance. Her biggest supporters are the women who see themselves in her and who feel that she is/they are owed this; after all she has/they have endured…She won’t give that speech because she has been on the wrong side of gender bias.”

Easter Weekend: McCarthy, Bosnia, Judas.

Hey all. Well, I’m sure many of you are as sick of reading about this lingering primary season as I’m getting to be about writing on it. At this point, my feelings about the Clinton campaign and the dwindling band of dead-enders lingering around her failed candidacy have gone from disbelief to disgust to a sort of exhausted aversion: It’s unsightly and hard to watch, and not only because so many Clinton supporters online have been leaving the reality-based community in droves. Like a fatally wounded snake, the campaign is still writhing, hissing, and lashing out by reflex, seemingly unaware that its time came and went weeks ago.

But, the news is the news, and I did promise to keep following it. So, if you, like me, took a break over the Easter weekend, here is the most recent litany of outrages. (Of course, at this late date, you’ll probably only find these outrageous if you haven’t been following along for the past few months…)

“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.” Have you no sense of decency, Mr. President, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Back in action after his “mugging”, Bill Clinton suggested that only a race between his wife and John McCain would include two patriots, and only by picking Clinton as the Democratic nominee can the country avoid “all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.” [See it here.] (I presume he’s talking about race, since I seem to remember President Clinton being personally responsible for “other stuff” intruding on politics back in the day, so much so that it ended up consuming a year of my life.)

Obama supporter Gen. Tony McPeak has been taking some flak for likening this questioning of Obama’s patriotism to the antics of Senator Joe McCarthy, but, let’s be honest, what else would you call it? It’s definitely in the same ballpark. Since time immemorial, arguing against one’s opponent’s patriotism has been the last refuge of a scoundrel, and as sure a sign as any that a political campaign is wheezing its last. And Clinton, of course, knows this firsthand, since he was on the receiving end of a similar smear in 1992. In short, the president has shamed himself and his legacy yet again.

“There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady…I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” As she’s been doing with SCHIP, NAFTA, FMLA, and Northern Ireland, we already know Sen. Clinton has been grotesquely exaggerating about her trip to Bosnia in 1996. Well, now she’s been caught in an outright lie. (A four-Pinocchio whopper, no less.) Video has surfaced, and not only was there no sniper fire at the airport, there was a greeting ceremony for Sen. Clinton…and Chelsea, because if a place is really small, poor, or dangerous, apparently the First Daughter gets to come along. At this ceremony, then-First Lady Clinton not only waded through the usual throng of soldiers standing at attention and bored bureaucratic functionaries, but gamely faced down the threat of a little girl offering flowers. Grisly stuff, to be sure. Update: Howard “Ken Starr” Wolfson says Clinton “misspoke,” while more Bosnia exaggerations emerge.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.” This one hits a little closer to home, but anyway: Clinton supporter “till the last dog dies” and my former employer James Carville calls Bill Richardson’s endorsement an “act of betrayal“, and actually likens him to Judas Iscariot (making the Clintons…uh, Jesus? Perhaps Brutus, Benedict Arnold, or Lando Calrissian would’ve worked better.) In Carville’s defense, I’ll bet dollars to donuts he meant this mainly as a joke (and, as he recently editorialized in the FT, he’s not one for the overparsing of political speech anyway.) That being said, since Carville’s a big boy, I’m sure he can weather Richardson’s pointed riposte just as well: “I’m not going to get in the gutter like that. And you know, that’s typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.” That they do, Governor, that they do.

I’m not at all surprised Carville is “Stickin’” with the Clinton campaign well past its expiration date — It’s his nature, and you can’t teach an old Clinton yellow-dog new tricks. But he’s dead wrong on this one, and given that he more than anyone else should be able to see the writing on the wall, politically speaking, he really should be working to bring the party back together, not continuing to poison the well with badly thought-out religious metaphors. (And if saying thus make me a “Judas” in his eyes, well, so be it…although I’d prefer to think of myself as a Jack Burden.)

Update: “I think the statement had the desired effect. It was what I said.” Carville talks Judas on CNN, and, as I suspected, he seemed to think it just all part of the game: “‘I doubt if Governor Richardson and I will be terribly close in the future,’ he said, but ‘I’ve had my say…I got one in the wheelhouse and I tagged him.’” What Carville seems to be ignoring here is that, tag or not, the game is already over, and Obama is the one going to the Series. So it’s a little late to be throwing the chin music.

Breaking News: The Obvious, Pt. II.

“One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.” Following the lead of Chuck Todd and the NYT, Politico‘s Jim Vanderhei and Mike Allen make the staggering realization that the Democratic primary is over. “[S]he has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else. People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet…In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.“

This is all true, of course, and it’s good to see MSM outlets — Jon Alter notwithstanding — finally say as much. Still, it’s more than a little irritating that, [a] not only is the press getting wise to this fact almost three weeks after it became patently obvious, but [b] when they finally do, the story isn’t “the race is over” but “look, the press is covering the race like it’s not over.” Please, quit the collective navel-gazing and do your jobs, people.

Update: TPM’s Josh Marshall has his own moment of clarity…sort of. “The obstacles in the way of Hillary Clinton are virtually insurmountable…Everyone in the press, probably including us, should be much more candid about that.” “Probably”? Oh, good grief.

Richardson: Time to Call it.

“My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990’s were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.“

Big news this Good Friday: Governor Bill Richardson will endorse Sen. Obama today. In his letter to former supporters, Richardson specifically cites Obama’s speech on Tuesday. “Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him…Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.” Mr. Richardson, your position is a messenger pigeon.

Snooping Around at State.

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an Administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes. This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.“

Breaking: It seems people at the State Department have been digging around Obama’s passport file, resulting in two firings and a disciplining. But who are they, and what were they looking for? I’m not sure a travel record or a lousy passport photo would add up to much in any case.

Clinton’s Trade Secrets.

“As she campaigns now, Clinton says, ‘I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.’ But the White House records confirm that this is not true. Her statement is, to be precise, a lie. When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar — a put-in-boldface-type “L-I-A-R” liar.” Shame on you, Hillary Clinton? The Nation‘s John Nichols argues Sen. Clinton’s credibility is in the tank after ABC News discovers that, contrary to her more recent statements, she was shilling for NAFTA quite a bit back in 1993. (By the way, Nichols is not alone in this assessment of Sen. Clinton.) Moreover, it seems venerable Davos boogier David Gergen helped enable her lying about the record by conveniently forgetting that he emceed a private pro-NAFTA event held by Hillary.

FWIW, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has offered the most plausible reckoning of Clinton’s NAFTA view so far: She was never against NAFTA, per se, only that the timing might interfere with her health care fiefdom. Update: Clinton and NAFTA, Youtubed.

Breaking News: The Obvious.

“The irony to all of this, of course, is that while the mechanics of the Democratic nomination fight overwhelmingly favor Obama, the media is giving Clinton a huge lift. And this comes after a year of Clinton complaints that the media was doing them more harm than good.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd argues that the press may be the only thing keeping Clinton in it (and that the supers may not much like Clinton anyway.) Gee, you think?

In related news, the NYT’s Adam Nagourney argues Clinton’s path to the nomination has gotten harder, now that Michigan and Florida don’t appear to be revoting. “If there is a road to victory for Mrs. Clinton, it is a fairly narrow one.” Emphasis there on “If.” But, hey, at least they’re starting to figure it out. Update: CNN also gropes toward the math.

The Security Gap | McCain’s Brain Drain.

“Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a ‘Commander in Chief test’ – not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington. She made a similar argument when she said her vote for war was based on her experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington’s judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military…We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually is.“

On the fifth anniversary of the war, Sen. Obama delivers a speech on Iraq and national security in Fayetteville, NC, and takes time to poke McCain for his apparent and frightening misunderstanding of Mideast affairs. “Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.” Really, McCain’s oft-repeated error smacks of Dubya-level incompetence, and would be all over the news today if we were in general election mode, rather than collectively continuing to assuage Sen. Clinton’s vanity, by assuming she still has a chance. For shame.