It's kinda ridiculous for anyone to claim that Clinton's prospects for the Democratic nomination are history, particularly while some of the methods for counting delegates have her in the lead. If this article is an accurate assessment of her reasons to hope, however, she might as well just start practicing her concession speech.

"Despite Obama's successes, he has been unable to make significant inroads with key voting blocs. Women, Latinos, and less-prosperous voters all have continued to support Clinton."

Women are in the majority in the Democratic party. If Obama hadn't had any luck winning women to his cause, he'd be ... losing.

"Obama is the candidate who is supposed to have the crazed supporters, but when the Washington Post recently asked Democratic voters how adamantly they supported their candidate, it was Clinton whose troops were more committed."

Isn't that sorta what 'winning the center' means? Being preferred over your opponents by people who aren't radical supporters? I imagine George W. Bush's supporters are extremely committed. They'd have to be.

"Clinton's support among these key demographics also provides her with her electability argument as she tries to make the case that Obama is a modern-day George McGovern—the pet rock of the party's wealthy liberal wing."

This seems to have missed a key point: the fact that part of the Democratic voting bloc shows a marginal preference for one candidate over the other doesn't mean they wouldn't stick with the party ticket in the general election. Unless it's being suggested that "working class people" would pick McCain (aka TaxCutty McEternalWarfare) over Obama, this isn't relevant. Of course, all the polling data seems to suggest that a significant chunk of the political center *would* lean right if Clinton were the alternative...

"Who would want to be the front-runner in this race? Every time someone is thus anointed, he or she falters."

When has that happened? By my count, the only candidates to have been given 'front-runner' status thus far are McCain and Clinton herself. McCain seems to be cruising to the nom. The fact that Clinton has lost support while wearing the mantle of presumptive nominee doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the mantle.

"The Democratic nomination may come down to the 796 superdelegates. How these Democratic elected officials and party insiders will vote is a mystery."

Wait - I thought we were being cynical here. Memories are notoriously short in Washington; are we to believe that, if Obama comes into the convention with a majority of both votes and pledged delegates, the super-d's will put the party's credibility and their own careers on the line for the sake of old friendships? Sure, the Clintons know how to play the game - but I imagine that the prospect of being invited to the White House in the future will weigh more heavily than the memory of having been invited there in the past, and it seems to me that the odds of a Democratic candidate driving a win-worthy turnout in November after arm-twisting his/her way to the nom are about nil.

Nice rebuttal. That last point in the article presumes that Teddy K. and the anti-war/left of center heavies will just get arm twisted easily by the Clintons at the convention.

Excellent post.

People need to note your last paragraph. My question is: how many chits have the Clintons called in already for H. Clinton's Senate runs (which were themselves calculated precursors to her inevitable presidential run, not that there's anything wrong with that)? As, Bill Clinton's reputation continues to recede, how many of the party regulars are tired of the Democratic party being all about the Clintons?

Strong post!

All very, very good points.

Your "front-runner" point was spot on. I thought the very same thing as I read the article.

No way Obama carries all these States and the Supers cast votes for Clinton at the Convention. (if it even comes to that --doubtful)

Not a member of the Cult of Obama, mind you, but momentum is going to take over between now and March 4.

I actually think Obama is going to become the presumptive nominee before the Convention becomes a question -- you'll see it when he wins Ohio.

You heard it here....

Good post.

One more point: why do Clinton supporters assume that the she (and Bill) will be better equipped to handle the GOP onslaught?

1) Obama seems to be handling himself against the Clinton machine pretty well; and

2) Obama's strategy is one of enticing right leaning independents and some Republicans to vote for HIM. And frankly, there's so much less fodder for the GOP machine than there would be if Clinton were the nominee.

JustAGirl:

Good post. One more point: why do Clinton supporters assume that the she (and Bill) will be better equipped to handle the GOP onslaught? 1) Obama seems to be handling himself against the Clinton machine pretty well; and 2) Obama's strategy is one of enticing right leaning independents and some Republicans to vote for HIM. And frankly, there's so much less fodder for the GOP machine than there would be if Clinton were the nominee.

Respectful disagreement here, JAG

This is exactly what Dumbo wants Obama supporters to think.....

And I think you're overselling his stand-up to the" Clinton Machine" As much as Clinton wants to win, the Clinton Machine doesn't look like it' has made it to 6th gear.... yet.

Why should it have been? She's been the front runner, per the MSM, up until this week. The next few weeks will be telling. Can she start to play to win? She can, but to my eye it's already too late.....and she'll have to pull punches to avoid running the risk of giving the McCain campaign fodder for the General.

Second, there is almost no contrast between HRC and Obama on the issues. Obama's nomination will not be so much because he'll make the better POTUS as it will be the novelty attached to his candidacy and the fact that he'd be shoo-in to win the monthly sales competition at just about any Chevy dealer.....You can bet this will come up after the DNC.....

As for BO's post-nomination campaign.....

Don't undersell what Dumbo will want to do to get McCain elected. And even by himself, McCain is a formidable opponent....(as much as I can't stand paying him compliments!!!)

Obama's name, his admitted cocaine use, his church, his ideology will, right or wrong ,all be drug out under the magnifying glass.....And that's just for starters.

No, nothing that Clinton can do now will compare to what Dumbo will visit on him when the environment changes from primary to a general campaign

No matter who is nominated, Dumbo is going to make it very ugly.....

Something else to remember is that Superdelegates are party people from all 50 states and the elected officials.

Are the activists side really going to shun Obama when he has won so many states and worked to build organization in states that are Republican controlled, many of them may want a candidate that bolsters their state parties by organizing people. His success in caucas states is showing people within the party he can inspire people to actually work on campaigns. Won't state party people want that in their arsenal?

Additionally, are the elected officials really exicited about the Clinton years? After all Bill lost them Congress, and they have to think that if a hard nosed Hillary wins they are the ones to take the punishment in 2010. Obama seems much better at sharing credit for good things and taking responsibility for failure. Given that wouldn't a Democratic Congressman be safer with Obama in the White House?

It seems to me the theory on the Clinton's winning rests on them promising upward mobility to super delegates, but to believe this you have to have a really cynical view of why the super delegates are involved in politics. I tend to think that most of the people who would go for this are already commited to either side. No one ever really rewards the guy who held out for a clear winner.

I don't disagree that some in the GOP will sling as much mud as possible. But all of that stuff about Obama's past is just old news and been tried (emailed) and debunked already. You'll never convince the whack jobs of the world that he's not a muslim manchurian candidate anyway. Why worry about them? I think it's safe to say they are a minority at this point (what's Bush's approval rating now?).

Also, don't underestimate Obama's Teflon, not to mention the public's complete and utter exhaustion with Rovian slash and burn politics-as-usual. Much like Bill's SC utterances, I think almost anything they throw at Obama will come back to hit them in the face.

Finally, while McCain may be formidable on some issues, he's also got some big negatives when it comes to his insistence on supporting Bush's policies (particularly Iraq). That may play well in some Hawk circles, but it won't get him very far in the general election.

I dunno, JAG. You're giving people a lot credit here that might not be so well-deserved.

Enlightened caucus-ers might look the other way, but I think there are a lot of people that will see mud instead of the candidate when he has to compete for GOP-ers and right-lean indies.

In an era of reality TV, the rehash of his past will make for good election coverage drama. Dumbo knows it and will use it

I'm totally prepared to be wrong about it. But, I don't think Obama will have such a thick coat of teflon when people consider actually putting him in office. It won't be old news when people step into the booth.

That sucks, really. I will not vote for Obama (primary or general -- should he be nominated), but by the same turn, I don't want to see him lose the election over "scandal" either. That guarantees that we didn't move ahead in '08 and that we might not have the right person in office.....

If McCain is going to beat him (not sold on him, either), I hope it's because he's taken the correct position on issues central to our national well-being, not because Obama's biological father left his mother when he was 2....know what I mean....?