she certainly has no right of refusal on a VP nominee, and she ran up her debt on her own, while effectively lying to the American people about her support.  If her support was so strong, why couldn't she get a million people to each give her 50-100 dollars the way Obama did.  Could it be that she really does not, for all the polling data and talking head bloviation, have that strong a commitment among those who voted for her?

As for healthcare -  Obama has run forcefully on the idea that the issue is affordability which is why he opposes mandates.  Agree or disagree, for him to change on that issue seems to me would damage his credibility with the American people - cutting political deals is precisely the old kind of politics that he is running against.

Oh, and if the CLintons feel comfortable that they are not violating the law by dipping into Bill's funds, they can certainly either tap people themeselves for repaying the debt or pay it off themselves.  No one told them to go into debt by another 6.45 million after the numbers made it clear she had almost no chance of winning the nomination.   What next, the Fed is supposed to bail her out the way they bailed out Bear Stearns?

Lowell, great post. I know some of what you are unsure of, but are throwing out there. It is a discussion that needs to happen, so thanks for talking about it.

In response to teacherken -- "if her support was so strong"
well, clearly it is. Out of the last 7 states, she won 5. And she may win the next 2. She is still in the race, and hasn't even had to try to retire her debt, so who are you to question her support - clearly her supporters have been there for her or we wouldn't be where we are today. And if superdelgates wanted to end this race right now they would - but they haven't.

And your last comments are ridiculous. I believe what your saying is one of the very reasons your candidate is going to have so much trouble bringing everyone together at the end of the day (and is having so much trouble closing the deal right now) -- You cannot continue to hit hillary and her supporters, and expect them to get behind your candidate with bells on.

1) in every case in the last 7 states she has underperformed her poll numbers

2) for whatever it is worth, a standard measure of a candidacy is its ability to raise money - Clinton fails miserably on that

3) another measure of a candidacy for an executive position is how well the campaign is run .   Ditto to response

4) Obama will have no trouble bringing people together.  I spend a lot of time on the Hill, including conversations with electeds, with staff, and with key Democratic lobbyists.  The only way Obama would have difficulty is if Clinton continues her scorched earth policy.   She could make it more difficult, but even then, her attacking him actually brings him some support.

5) Clinton claimed to have found her voice in NH, but then theoretically lost it for the next 6 weeks?  So in whose voice was she speaking then?

6) Clinton was against the gas tax holiday before she was for it - I know a LOT of Dem electeds and candidates who are furious at her for demagoguing the gas tax issues and thus providing cover to McCain - oh, and by the way, the exit poll data demonstrates that it didn't help her

7) exit poll data in Indiana is fascinating, since even a substantial number of people who voted for her believe she was unfair to Obama, that he more than she shares their values

Clinton dug her own hole.  Her campaign staff has consistently been at a minimum disingenuous if not downright dishonest in statements about money.  And if she continues to "loan" money to herself because she can't raise it, that is like a gambler doubling after each hand in hopes that something will enable him to recover.

As far as superdelegates -  if she continues to make comments like those about white people yesterday, you might see more of them speak up.   They would prefer to let her have a graceful way out, but if she continues to do things viewed as destructive to the party, then trust me, they will act.

Again, on all three of Lowell points - Clinton has no right and should have no expectation of any of them.  She has not earned any right.  The rules were clear, she keeps trying to change them because within the rules she loses and she knows it.  The more she acts like that, the less inclined people would be to grant her anything.   Thus she has only herself, and her campaign, to blame for the resistance of many who are supporting Obama.

And fwiw -  Obama was my 5th choice this cycle.  Clinton disqualified herself in my mind back in Iowa, when she tried to discourage young people from voting because they were supporting Obama.  I was not an obama supporter then - I was neutral.  

I wish there was something higher....it deserved a "10"

She [Clinton] has not earned any right.

Doesn't getting almost one-half of the primary vote and one-half of the delegates earn you something?

That was a rhetorical question, of course. What, exactly, it earns you is something else. But it earns you alot.

Rules aside, practical politics are not winner-take-all.

If Obama and his people give her the high hat, then I would suspect she will not do much to support him in the general, and I would completely understand that.

come off of that position, stop insisting on pushing things to  a ridiculous point and perhaps there is a point of discussion

but let's just take the debt issue

she was already effectively mathematically out of it, loaned her campain an additional 6 million plus, and still fell further behind.  Now she proposed loaning herself more -  why then when she is needlessly prolonging the process and damaging the party should she have any expectation of help in repaying that debt?  If she wants to GIVE her own money to continue, then maybe she should use any additional funds she has to pay off the debts she has already incurred.

I can go through each of Lowell's three points in a similar fashion, demonstrating why she is not entitled, and should have no expectations.

She is perfectly capable of raising the money for her Senate fund, and it would be legal to transfer to her presidential fund.   She didn't want to GIVE her own money because it would have invoked the millionaire's amendment and allow Obama to get triple the 2300 max from his big donors, thereby putting her even further behind.

Clinton has been distorting the process and tearing down the probably nominee for some time.  Obama might decide to be gracious, eventually, but first she has to demonstrate something other than what her white people remarks yesterday indicated.

And if she is forced out, it will be because her campaign and rhetoric are now turning off supers who had been supporting her and do not want to be affiliated with her destructiveness.

If she behaves herself, and runs positively with respect to Obama, and then gets out, either after WV or after KY and OR (by which time the pledged delegate majority will be official - practically it is .5 delegate away now, because give Obama the single delegate in each Congressional district, each statewide total vote and each state wide PLEO that he is guaranteed merely for being viable at 15%, then had would already be at a tie for pledged delegates guaranteed.  After next Tuesday, it is mathematically done.  

If she makes any attempt to drag this thing out, she basically loses any good will to which she might otherwise have some expectation because of her support that she might otherwise get by a gracious exit.

The ball is entirely in her court.  As of now there is no reason she should have any expectation.  She could earn some by how she acts, but certainly neither the VP nomination nor the right to have control over it.  She lost, and that choice belongs only to the winner.  

but I do think when a candidate walks into a convention with about 49% of the delegates in her corner, she ain't walking out empty-handed.

I'm not familiar with the rules, but I'm guessing that a candidate with 49% of the delegates can wreak havoc at the convention.

Further, as the victor, the ball is actually now in Obama's court, IMHO. Just like that, he has way more to lose than she does.

Just for the record, I only wrote about one single point (I presume the rest of your response was for Adam), but to the extent it needs addressing,  I do think the idea that she should have veto power over a VP choice or Obama should retire her campaign debt are both just silly.

But she has definitely earned the right to have serious input into the VP choice, if she wants it.

Offering her something "if she behaves herself" is just insulting, and statements like that do not help your candidate, whenever or however you decided to support him.

"the idea that she should have veto power over a VP choice or Obama should retire her campaign debt are both just silly."

I didn't donate to Barack Obama so he could retire the debt Hillary Clinton racked up paying Mark Penn exorbitant amounts of money!  Jeez.

who cares if she underperformed in poll numbers... they are polls. a win is a win as pelosi said yesterday.

you say she fails miserably with money - what are you talking about? she has broken every record set with fundraising with the exception of obama. what are you talking about? this makes no sense.

good for you that you spend lots of time on the hill. i spend lots of time talking to voters - specifically hillary supporters. and i am going to continue making the case that if these two don't run together this party is going to lose a massive amount of voters.

you just don't want to give hillary any credit. and it is fine - thats your choice. I am glad she is staying in the race and continuing this campaign. neither of them have enough delegates for the nomination - thats where we are today.

Do you have any comments on this?  Thanks.

She has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that her campaign is corrosively DIVISIVE, a reflection of the candidate herself. For the next 4 to 8 years (assuming a Democratic win) ... she can spend that time re-constructing her image. To those hard core Clintonistas ... Good riddance.

Dan Conley's three points, not mine.

I big part of my gut is leading me to belive that though in the end Clinton will have to come to grips with reality and come to peace with Obama before the General, but what about post-November. Regardless of victory or defeat I feel that the Clintons may orchestrate a power grap no matter the size for the future in the Party. I think that this primary season has seen some real divisions between groups within the Party itself that once the election is over may be exploited by the Clintons. There may be siginificant elements that may never vote ofr Obama after Clintons withdrawal who may be looking no such much for a new home but a revitilized piece of the Party. Afterall, Clinton will not be going anywhere. She will still be very powerful in the Senate no matter who is in the White House and do not forget that if anyone believes that Chelsea is not be groomed for politics down the road and carry on the legacy of the Clintons they certainly are naive.
Again, I am not sure how it would come about but I am more interested in seeing the post-election unity landscape and how long it lasts. I think the Clinton camp has some real pent up aggrevations that are not likely to dwindle simply because Clinton may finally end it all.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me up a wall:

and do not forget that if anyone believes that Chelsea is not be groomed for politics down the road and carry on the legacy of the Clintons they certainly are naive.

How about, like millions of other parents in America who love their children, they are "grooming" her to be  happy, well-adjusted, secure person at whatever she chooses to do with her life?  

that is one of the biggest conspiracy theories i have ever seen. unreal.

And a tremendously influential one at that.  It would be in both Clinton and Obama's best interest to proactively bury the hatchet and come together because one way or another, they're going to have to work together in January 2009.

So they should find a way to get over it.  And some other folks should find a way to get over themselves.

Clinton's optimal leverage point was right after the March 4th primaries.  If Clinton's inner circle had been shooting her straight they would have pushed for a deal then.

Clinton still has leverage, but the closer we get to May 20th and June the less leverage her campaign will have.  

My sense is that most of the party insiders aren't buying the Florida-Michigan line, so Clinton risks having more of her own super-delegate support bleeding off.

The real problem from my point of view is that the Clinton campaign still hasn't given up the ghost -- they are living in some alternate reality.  

In New Hampshire her team talked about "reality checks" -- the reality check here is that she needs 83 percent of the vote in every remaining contest and in every single precinct left (she could split up in a state like Oregon with 65-35 splits) -- this is just to get to parity in the pledged delegate race.  Not to win outright, but simply to pull a draw from the deck.

My read is that May 20th the hard numbers are going to be written in stone and the leverage point will be pretty close to zero in terms of dictating an outcome.

At this stage Clinton calls the shots as far as whether or not she continues in the race.  Her campaign though is still fighting a primary battle, when the focus should be on the general election.  Her focus should be on McCain, not Florida-Michigan, or who has the "larger coalition".  This one is starting to get beyond absurd.

she has run as a fighter. her supporters know her as a fighter. to drop out now, would go against everything she stands for. she is going to fight until there is a nominee, and she will make sure MI and FL are seated fairly. and when there is a nominee, she will do everything she can to make sure we take back the white house.

I am not sure what you mean by "buying" -- MI and FL are very important and they need to be dealt with in the right way. We are starting to hear the outcry coming out of florida - their votes weren't counted in 2000 and they rightly feel they aren't being counted again. Lets see what happens May 31st.

there are two good documentaries about the 1994 Senate race -- "Ollie's Army" which follows a group of JMU college Republicans; and an even better one "The Perfect Candidate," which has the memorable seen of the extremely shy Robb trying to meet voters in a supermarket.  

Neither documentaries go into the details of the Robb-Wilder negotiations (not as far as I can remember at least), but they do talk about the dynamic in the race.  This was a contest where both parties were badly split.  On the Dem side it was a case of the Wilder and Robb battle.  

On the GOP side it was North against the party's moderate wing of Warner and people like Jim Webb who fielded Marshall Coleman as their favored choice.