When the Post-Mortem is written on the 2008 primary campaign

Three things will emerge:

Mark Penn as chief strategist and his client made the erroneous assumption that it would be over by Super Tuesday. Their entire strategy and spending plan was based on sweeping victories early and vanquishing their opponents on Super Tues. There was an assumption that the reach of their decade old infrastructure would be sufficient and it was not.

When they lost Iowa they failed to have Plan B to counter Obama's momentum and they were hamstrung by a fundraising strategy that emphasized the General election rather than a protected primary battle. They hit a fundreaising wall and were devastated by Obama's fundraising machine.

Post-South Carolina the realized that is was going to be a fight and they began to look for advantage in FL an MI and with Super Delegates. Hemmed in with both, drawing even on Super Tuesday, they face an operation and financial crunch. Obama was clearly better organized in the caucuses and they lacked the resources to fight a protracted air battle in the remaining February primaries. Penn made the only decision he could save what resources they had and make a play in Texas and Ohio get close enough and rely on super delegates to bring them home.

The problem was the Obama campaign had built to to much momentum during the rest of February and their friends within the Super Delegate community were not nearly as loyal to the Clintons as they had hoped.

Though they barely lost Texas and won Ohio by 5% the delegate math was ugly for them and they wound up losing more ground. John Edwards late endorsement did them no great good as Al Gore said in a conference call that it was now time to unite the party behind one candidate.

Out of money and gaining no great traction on Florida Michigan or with the supers, they folded up the tent on April first, much to the relief of the party.

they would be blamed for any Hillary loss in the general if they're the way she got the nomination and you'd see a BIG uproar from the grassroots

you'd see wholesale defections from the party and I think the party would split

if the supers are the way either of them get the nomination.

If neither Hillary nor Obama gets a substantial lead before the convention and the supers make the decision... watch out.
This will likely be a major trainwreck for the democratic party.

If she puts us through that the blame is on her. The pledged counts are very likely to be in Obama's favor unless something huge happens to damage his candidacy.

EITHER candidate has to make it right when they back out ...

IF it were to be Hill, she would have to make a very strong and definitive statement of support for Obama ... Unequivicable ... Take responsiblity for her not getting the nod in whatever way ...

However, I agree with most that it is questionable that she will be able to accept it ... She has LONG had tunnel vision on this thing, and what has happened as the tides have turned against her is that her and her campaign have increasingly devolved in their tone and attitude ...

She's "in it to win it" and anything else is not acceptable. Party be damned.

they can take the party foot and kick their ass.

in the ass take it?

"X" had the popular vote but was robbed by the supers!!!
"Y" had the delegates but was robbed by the supers!!!

If one candidate has the popular and the other the delegates there's going to be a firestorm no matter who the supers side with.
... one of the reasons I think super delegates are a "super" stupid idea..

once it becomes obvious that Clinton will need Huge wins in all remaining contests in order to match Obama's pledged delegates, they'll kick her out.

I only see what you describe as working if both of the following happen:

1) that they do this long before the convention
2) after they do it the person they've kicked actually drops

I don't think either Hillary or Barrack is going to drop.
At least not until it's clear that one or the other has a massive lead in pledged delegates that can't be overcome by supers.

I think both of them will bank on being able to change the supers' votes right up until the convention, so if it remains close it's gonna go all the way to the convention.
At which point we'd be back to the supers deciding the election and possibly splitting the party.

When the decision was made after New Hampshire in a moment of hubris by Penn, McAuliffe and the Clintons to begin going after Barack Obama which they did, they forgot that people want to vote FOR someone, not just AGAINST the other guy.

And amazing at it is, ever since then (with the brief exception at the Kodak Theater), the mantra from the Clintons campaign has been non-stop attacks on Obama.

Their message should have been all about Hillary. She was the candidate and it seems very odd to me that a feminist would permit all of these testosterone poisoned uber males to being playing war games against Obama instead of showcasing her.

And even as of today, Hillary's speeches are all about Obama and his speeches. They really are off the track.

IMO, their whole campaign was geared up for a REPUBLICAN style campaign ...

When she was a strong front runner, she just ran with a simple positive message ... As things tightened up, the campaign started to react like republicans - attacking Obama ... The more it tightened, the more they fell into the attack mode, which ohly digs their hole deeper ... The more they attack Obama, the more they turn people off to her ...

This would all be fine and well if it was a republican type candidate who was engaged in the same kind of campaign ... But, it is like rock, paper, scizzors (sp) ...

They are the rock and Obama is the paper ...

It just is stunning how tone death they are at this point ... As you noted, she is giving SPEECHES about all her opponent does is give speeches ...

which is an eternity. If Clinton loses either Texas or Ohio, the tide will turn and many in the party won't put up with her and McCain tag-teaming Obama as they have been doing lately. He'll be seen as the evntual nominee and the pressure will be on her to concede. But, first, Obama has to put one of those two states away.

All that angst and frustration building up.. Thank God people on here will start having sex again or this place would be link just a couple of steps short of Dante's inferno

All that angst and frustration building up.. Thank God people on here will start having sex again or this place would be link just a couple of steps short of Dante's inferno

but because of the way the delegate math works it is liable to be a draw delegate wise unless she wins really big in Ohio and Texas.

In Texas she has Demographics and Geography against her.

She is not doing nearly as well amonw women in Southern states and while that is probably offset by her hispanic support. The Hispanic strength is large in the Rio Grande Valley, it is concentrated and apparently they do not vote in large numbers. Democrats are conservative in Texas. I supsect they would be opposed more to Hillary than Obama on that basis. But that is just conjecture.

If Obama pulls White democratic men and pulls significant AA support in Hiuston and DFW it will be too close to be anything but a push delegate wise. That is not what Hillary needs.


She probably has a better shot at getting a big win in Ohio.

She will not win Ohio, tie in Texas and lose in PA. Philadelphia will vote 80% Obama and that will carry him in the state...Pittsburgh will go for Obama too...Hillary is in deep trouble and Team Clinton knows it.

the proble she has is that it is an effectively open primary... and Indies who do not like the GOP contenders and in particular McCain may decide to playin the Dem contest thisyear.

That is where she will run into problems