What the f--?

"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."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

How is that not race-baiting?

Are African Americans not hard working? Are Americans with college degrees not hard working? And this obsession with race!

And she's wrong, too. Look at Obama's support in these relevant categories over the last six contests, spanning eight whole weeks.

So let's see what Clinton is claiming again -- that "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."

• Obama's support among whites is actually increasing compared to Ohio, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. She lied about that.
• Obama's support among "hard working Americans", which is code for poorer Americans, has also increased over those in previous contests, save for Mississippi, where the under-$50K vote was overwhelmingly black.
• Obama's numbers among college grads is static to increasing. We don't have exit poll breakdowns for education by race, and we can assume North Carolina's huge numbers with "no college" are due to the large African American percentages in the state. But what about Indiana, a state that is whiter (83.9%) than Pennsylvania (82.1%), Ohio (82.9%) and Texas (48.3%)? Despite the demographic disadvantage, Obama actually increased his support among voters with no college degrees.

So how can Clinton be so wrong? Because she's citing an AP-Yahoo News poll from back on May 3rd. Rather than cite actual voter data, she is basing her claims on an old poll taken before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

Yup. That's what Hillary Clinton has been reduced to. Ignoring actual votes and cherry picking polls.

Which really, shouldn't surprise anyone. She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.

I was googling around for something when I came across this oldie, but goodie, from June 26, 2003:

Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the "New Democrats Directory," a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.  

"I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC," said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with   Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. "It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC...listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory," Obama continued. "Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention."

Compare to his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

So we all know that the thresshold for victory is 2,024 right? (Actually, it's now 2,024.5 with last week's LA-06 victory, but close enough.) The Clinton campaign, which has installed a little motor in their goalposts so they don't wear themselves out moving them, now claims:

[Yesterday] morning, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign made the case that the goal line needs to be moved further back and that the real "magic number" is 2,209. It also laid out a scenario that has the primary season ending on June 3 with neither major contender having reached the 2,209 mark. In that event, Clinton strategist Geoff Garin said, "the process" would continue -- a process that could see Clinton and Barack Obama taking their battle for the nomination to the floor of the party's late-August convention in Denver.

Man, Those people will do anything to win. Even if, as Mark Nickolas points out, it makes them hypocrites:

Howard Wolfson, January 26:

[WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

Howard Wolfson, February 12:

"We don’t think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates," Wolfson said during Monday’s briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama’s February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio’s 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

Howard Wolfson, February 13:

"Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson

[...]

And so on. Nickolas dug up nine similar quotes, and there's obviously a lot more of that lying around.

One month ago:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted Thursday that Republicans will pick up seats in the 2008 election despite a slew of GOP retirements and the Democrats’ significant fundraising advantage.

"We don’t need as much money as [Democrats] have," he said.  "We need enough to tell our story."

He added, "I think we are going to gain seats this year. Period."

Today:

Losses in two recent special elections combined with prospects for a tough contest next week sent House Republicans scrambling for change — both in words and deeds.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner told his caucus behind closed doors Tuesday that Americans won’t vote for Republicans until they fix their "brand" and convince voters they will fix Washington, according to members who were present.

The solution?

He told reporters that a campaign message for the caucus would be developed in the next few weeks.

"I think it’s clear this election is about change," Boehner said. "If we’re going to do well in this election, if we’re going to win back our majority, we have to prove to people that we are in fact the agents of change."

"I’ve been saying it for a year and a half," Boehner told his colleagues, according to the Ohio Republican’s written talking points and those inside the room. "Some of you have been listening. Others I’m not so sure about."

Boehner cited the need to stick with presumed presidential nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain and aggressively criticize Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif.

Right. Agents of change. Doing things like this.

House Republicans will hold a rally with President Bush on Wednesday morning, with all 199 members invited to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to show solidarity with the president, according to GOP sources.

That's a total change from the blind solidarity Republicans have give Bush the last eight years! That'll show voters how Republicans want a change from a potential Obama presidency and all the things he'd do to reverse the Bush disaster! And yeah, it'll totally be a change for Republicans to remind voters that Pelosi is from -- gasp! -- San Francisco! That'll be so different from the last two years they've spent reminding voters that Pelosi is from -- gasp! -- San Francisco!

Where did Republicans dig up this joker?

Boy, I keep hearing from all over the place that if it wasn't for those meddlin' blacks, Clinton would've won big yesterday!

Yes, it's true. African Americans were a big component of his winning margin in NC and paper-thin loss in Indiana. But who else was a big component? Let's look at some other demographics Obama got, with the percent

The 17-64 number is particularly stark, but there are a ton of demographics that have voted heavily for Obama. Anyone under 64, first-time voters, young voters, urban voters, educated voters, etc. What about rich elites? Actually, Clinton won those in Indiana (52% of those making over $100K, which in Indiana, is a lot).

I should go around talking about Clinton's "non-senior problem". It would make far more sense, given that they're about 80 percent+ of the electorate, than bizarrely fixating on race as though it's the only factor at play.

(*) North Carolina is only the fourth state in which Clinton has won the independent vote.

• hillaryis404.org
• The Obama campaign is looking to close this out in Oregon.
• Simon Rosenberg:

  In addition to sounding like she has been trying to rewrite the rules in the middle of the game, I think the strident rhetoric by the Clinton campaign on the sanctioning of FL and MI has done grave damage to their campaign. Most of the superdelegates, who at this point have the power to decide the outcome of the race, are from the other 48 states and 6 territories. They played by the rules. They are not interested in rewarding FL and MI for bad behavior and have resented the approach taken by the Clintons.

  In addition, Senator Clinton's campaign agreed to the sanctioning of Florida and Michigan. If the voters of those states were disinfranchised then she was instrumental in bringing that about. The superdelegates in these other places understand all this better than anyone, and I think her wild approach to resolving the unfortunate problem of FL and MI has ended up being a major cause of her terrible showing with superdelegates these last 2 months. Like many of us who understood the system, and her role in creating it, the campaign's consistent whining and strident rhetoric has spoken very badly of her character. To many this episode has reinforced the notion that she and her husband were her willing to say and do anything to get elected, including what appears to be, let us say, lying and cheating.

• This parody of Russert and Matthews is still funny. And I've read it like five times.
• Did you know that Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC convention will come 45 years to the day of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech? Yup, the same MLK whose holiday McCain long opposed.
• Crazy email of the day:

  Why are you called "Daily Kos"?  Is this somehow code for support for Mr. Obama? Perhaps you should disclose the fact that you are an arm of the Obama campaign.

  Damn! Someone cracked the code.

• I wonder if the moron media will quit talking about "momentum". Bowers:

  I am finding myself resistant to the way this nomination campaign appears to be ending, mainly because there is no logic to it. All of the arguments that could be used by the punditry to declare the nomination campaign over could have been used really at any point since Wisconsin. For some reason, those arguments appear to be sticking tonight, whereas they weren't earlier. According to the logic that ends the campaign tonight, there was no reason to torture us for the past two months, except to damage Democrats for the sake of damaging Democrats. I guess I should have learned by now that that is reason enough.

• McCain is so helpful to us:

  John McCain sought to burnish his conservative credentials Tuesday with a broadside against "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power" and a promise of "better judges" in the mold of Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito.

  That's code for "overturing abortion rights". At a time when the Democratic nominee has a potential problem with Democratic women voters, this is a nice reminder of what's at stake.

• Jake Tapper on Clinton's new loan:

  Sen. Clinton earned slightly more than $10 million (including an $8 million advance) for her memoir, Living History.

  She has now loaned herself more than that -- $11.425 million -- meaning, presumably, she may now be lending her campaign funds former President Bill Clinton earned.

  Their joint assets are their joint assets -- but she's the one who split the hairs on "my money" back in February.

  More to the point, this news may give the media more of a reason than ever to inquire as to how the former President has made his money -- something he has been reluctant to discuss.

• And to close, who was it that ordered food for Obama phone bankers? I got this email from an anonymous Obama staffer yesterday:

  We're still pounding away, trying to fire up every last supporter to get to the polls, but I wanted to take a minute to thank you guys.

  We'd gotten into the office extremely early, trained and sent out a huge morning wave of canvassers, and were fading quick by late morning.

  However, when the big box of sandwiches got here, we were pleasantly surprised -- more so when we saw where it came from!

  I better get back to taking it to the streets, but thanks for keeping us going during the mid-morning lull. Wish us luck!

I hope Republicans stay this stupid all year:

House Republicans will hold a rally with President Bush on Wednesday morning, with all 199 members invited to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to show solidarity with the president, according to GOP sources.

I hope there are lots of pictures taken with Mr. 28%. People may not be able to vote against the nation's Worst President Ever, but they sure as heck can punish those who continue to prop up his regressive agenda. Unfortunately, I think Tim F. over at Balloon-Juice has it right:

I have to assume that this little pep rally will be about as well attended as Alberto ‘abu’ Gonzales’s farewell party at the DoJ. Still, if this is the political genius coordinating 2008 Congressional races you can sort of understand why Republican partisans outside of government have gotten so frantic.

So Clinton vows to stay in through the end, and surrogates like James Carville are talking tough. But the feeling is that it's all posturing as the Clinton Camp negotiates for 1) having Obama pay off her campaign debt, and/or 2) a spot on the ticket as VP.

Debt
The debt is kind of hard to swallow. On the one hand, Obama's money needs to start being spent against McCain, not to bail out a campaign that racked up the debt after it was clear that she had no shot at the nomination, and debt that was used to attack and smear Obama. Given that the Clintons have more than enough money and fundraising ability to retire their own debt, there really should be no reason to continue harming the anti-McCain effort by draining a portion of Obama's coffers.

On the other hand, let's say that debt is around $10 million. Obama will have to spend more than that to continue fending Clinton off, while delaying the effective start of the general election. Ultimately, it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but one that if the Clintons' insist on (to the detriment of their party), Obama would have little choice but to agree.

Vice Presidency
As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won't outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let's face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama's core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He's been a disgrace.

Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There's no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.

What about her positives? She doesn't deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn't add "experience" to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There's the "unify the party" thing, but that's overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn't support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain's enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they'd never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.

And then there's demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let's not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women's movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, "In our lifetimes". It's inspiring for African Americans as Clinton's chances were for women.

In that regard, Obama has two strong choices -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. While I said above that vice presidential candidates don't bring geography with them, Richardson actually would deliver New Mexico since it's probably the most evenly matched state in the union. Bush beat Kerry by less than a percentage point in 2004, or 7,000 votes. And Richardson's strong cred in the Latino community would improve Obama's chances in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. In fact, I'd camp him out in those states. Furthermore, his foreign policy credibility is unparalleled in Democratic politics, bolstering one of Obama's perceived weaknesses.

It would be tough for Sebelius to deliver Kansas, but she has a proven record of winning moderate and Republican votes without abandoning core progressive principles. She's a former head of the Democratic Governor's Association (as is Richardson), so has strong ties to many of the nation's Democratic governors who will play a large role in delivering the ticket to the Democrats. She has successful executive experience, and was named by Time in 2005 as one of the nation's five best governors for balancing the states crushing $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting funding for education. She has convinced a large number of her state's Republicans to switch parties. Her (Democratic) Lt. Gov is a former chair of the Kansas Republican Party. She is the kind of "reach out" politician that Obama wants to be, and would be a fantastic choice for him.

And don't worry, she had a bad night during her 2008 state of the union address rebuttal. She's a much better communicator and campaigner than that appearance would indicate.

One added bonus -- I can't think of anyone else who would be a better fit than these two, regardless of race or sex. I know some people like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, but he's sort of a maverick, and wouldn't do the "subservient to the presidential nominee" thing too well. He's a true alpha male, and will be a fantastic senator and maybe someday a top-of-the-ticket guy. I obviously like Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but he's focused on his big plans in Montana, and is currently running for reelection. I like that he's building up his state's Democratic Party, and would rather he continue focusing on that for the moment (and so would him, as far as I can tell). Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine? A compelling possibility who I would slot third in line. His resume is much thiner than Richardson or Sebelius. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland? Also wouldn't be a bad choice, but he cast his lot with Clinton, and that sort of thing matters in decisions like this one. Same with Wes Clark. I like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and she has been a tireless surrogate for Obama, but we'd lose a Senate seat and it would be nice to get some executive experience on the ticket. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is compelling as well (I can't think of any negatives).

There are other compelling names, all of who I would choose before Hillary Clinton. Remember, the goal here is to win the White House and have the most effective government possible, not to salve the bruised egos of an American political dynasty.

According to SurveyUSA's pollster scorecards, which track 8 different measures of scoring polling results:

North Carolina: PPP was the most accurate by five measures, Zogby by three.

Indiana: PPP was the most accurate by five measures, InsiderAdvantage by three.

Overall, Research 2000, who does polling for Daily Kos, was second best in North Carolina (out of 13) and fourth best in Indiana (out of 10).

Meanwhile, here are the results of my last three predictions:

Damn NC burns me up, since I was one tenth of a percent off on Obama, but forgot to account for "no preference" and Mike Gravel on the ballot. Combined, they got 2.4 percent. I would've guessed 1 percent, so that would've brought my margin of error to under 2 points. But that's just me being greedy.

Given that I pull these out of you-know-where, it seems my ass is more accurate than the pollsters! I jest, I jest. The polling composites were a big part of my prediction system. But if you want to know why I abandoned SUSA for the NC predictions, something I'm loathe to do, check this out:

Of course, it's hard to say what SUSA meant by "Charlotte" and "Raleigh". I assumed metro area, while those actual results are from the counties those cities reside in. But if we take "Raleigh" to mean the research triangle, that was always a region that Obama was going to win by about 30 points. And there was no way that Clinton was going to win the Charlotte region.

In any case, don't take much stock in my predictions. I've blown way too many to pretend that I'm much good. But it does feel good to hit a couple once in a while. But there's one more theory of mine that got additional support: that the only endorsements that matter are those from politicians that have machines.

Obama won Connecticut on the strength of the New Haven machine. Clinton won California on the strength of the Los Angeles Villaraigosa machine. So despite the hooplah, I immediately discounted the Sen. Bob Casey endorsement in Pennsylvania for Obama, and the Sen. Evan Bayh and Gov. Mike Easley endorsements in Indiana and North Carolina for Clinton. Then I gave Obama a point in both states for the quality of his mayoral endorsements in Indiana and North Carolina. Looking at Obama's performance in northeastern Indiana, I think the mayors may have been worth two points to his margin. Indeed, SUSA predicted a reasonable African American turnout of 10 percent. Exit polls pegged it at 18 percent, nearly double their state's percentage (about 9.5 percent).

I think it's pretty clear that the only endorsements that truly matter are those that bring patronage machines into the fray.

Update: Here are SUSA's regional definitions for NC, and the rest of the country can be found here.

TO:   Superdelegates
FROM:   David Plouffe, Campaign Manager
RE:   An Update on the Race for Delegates
DA:   May 7, 2008

There are only six contests remaining in the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7 percent of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 260 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 477 delegates left to be awarded.

With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination.  This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates.

With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.

We believe it is exceedingly unlikely Senator Clinton will overtake our lead in the popular vote and in fact lost ground on that measure last night. However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote.

Just as the Presidential election in November will be decided by the electoral college, not popular vote, the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates.

If we believed the popular vote was  somehow the key measurement, we would have campaigned much more intensively in our home state of Illinois and in all the other populous states, in the pursuit of larger raw vote totals. But it is not the key measurement. We played by the rules, set by you, the DNC members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.

The Clinton campaign was very clear about their own strategy until the numbers become too ominous for them. They were like a broken record , repeating ad nauseum that this nomination race is about delegates. Now, the word delegate has disappeared from their vocabulary, in an attempt to change the rules and create an alternative reality.

We want to be clear – we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will and should be the nominee of our party. And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates  According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton Campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.

But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be. Many are deciding on the basis of electability, a favorite Clinton refrain. And if you look at the numbers, during a period where the Clinton campaign has been making an increasingly strident pitch on electability, it is clear their argument is failing miserably with superdelegates.

Since February 5, the Obama campaign has netted 107 superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign only 21. Since the Pennsylvania primary, much of it during the challenging Rev. Wright period, we have netted 24 and the Clinton campaign 17.

At some point – we would argue that time is now – this ceases to be a theoretical exercise about how superdelegates view electability. The reality of the preferences in the last several weeks offer a clear guide of how strongly superdelegates feel Senator Obama will perform in November, both in building a winning campaign for the presidency as well as providing the best electoral climate across the country for all Democratic candidates.

It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.

It is only among DNC members where Senator Clinton holds a lead, which has been rapidly dwindling.

As we head into the final days of the campaign, we just wanted to be clear with you as a party leader, who will be instrumental in making the final decision of who our nominee will be, how we view the race at this point.

Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded. It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules – your rules – which we built this campaign and our strategy around.

George Stephanopoulos, this morning:

More superdelegates will come out today for Barack Obama –they will come three, four, five at a time, and this nomination will be locked up.

I don't think he meant to say that the nomination will be locked up today. But it should be soon.

I still say that Oregon should push Obama over the 2,024.5 mark. Or if the Clinton campaign remains obtuse, enough to get him over whatever number he needs when including Michigan and Florida.

When Clinton supposedly raised $10 million post-Pennsylvania, many of us pointed out that, if true, that was just enough to cover her campaign debt. We still don't know how much more she raised over the month, but clearly it wasn't enough.

An aide says Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has lent her presidential campaign $6.4 million over the past month.

The money more than doubles Clinton's personal investment in her bid for the Democratic nomination. She gave her campaign $5 million earlier this year.

With $11.4 million of her own money invested in the race, and still likely facing campaign debts, this may compel her to stay in the race. She can raise money while spending little to win West Virginia comfortably.

Of course, Bill could always do a couple of speeches to pay off that debt rather than have her small-dollar supporters foot the bill. Having made over $100 million the past eight years, and with unlimited earning potential, the Clintons could afford it.

Our favorite Newt:

The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed

The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."

This is quite a radical idea in the current Republican world, which is under the impression that the increased voter registration and organizing around our long-drawn primary is a good thing for them. They labor under the fiction (shared by too many Clinton supporters) that voters will find Wright more detestable and relevant than George W. Bush, the shitty economy, and the never-ending war in Iraq.

A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.

Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37).

This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans built up over three generations on the deficit, two generations on taxes, and two generations on national security.

Yup. And Jeremiah Wright can't begin to compete in the voters' minds with this or Bush or Iraq, no matter how much Republicans will it so.

Gingrich then goes on to make a series of policy proposals he thinks would restore the Republican brand. Things like a gas tax holiday, make English the official language, "remind Americans that judges mattered" (because apparently they forgot), and take digs at unions.

Isn't this already the GOP platform? So okay, his "bold course of real change" isn't so bold or actually change course from anything that Bush hasn't already wrought on the nation. But his clear-eyed understanding of his party's dire straits? That part is dead on.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are feeling a bit, well, panicky.

Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.
The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.

“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”

In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.

I'm sure that after seeing Gingrich's lame prescription for what ails them, their mood can only worsen.

Clinton wins Indiana.

Indiana

North Carolina (Winner: Obama)

Update: That's about 1 1/2 percent margin, not the kind of win that allows you to brag about marching toward the White House.

The Republicans also had primaries in Indiana, and the Lake County Republican Party chairman says there's no shady dealings going on in the county.

"Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley stood by his Democratic counterpart Rudy Clay as the nation waited for vote totals from Lake County. "There's no hanky panky going on," Curley said after members of the national media wondered why Lake County's votes were taking so much longer to count than the rest of the state. "We have more than 11,000 absentee ballots, far more than we've ever had before," Curley said, insisting it simply takes time to get through that many tallies.

The two party chairmen planned to meet at the government center at about 11 p.m., and Curley promised the vote totals would soon be released."

Any efforts to mess with the vote in the county would need the assistance of the county's GOP, which seems unlikely. Especially since it was in the GOP's interest to keep Clinton in the race.

Update: Wow, Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott made Gary Mayor Rudy Clay look like an idiot.

Meanwhile, Clinton is going to pull this off. Barely.

Clinton is doing no public events tomorrow.

Gary is almost all in.

The first totals from Lake County,

316 precincts out of 561 reporting.

Almost all of Gary and Merrillville and portion of Munster primarily make up these numbers, plus Lake Station, East Chicago:

There's also some votes left in Bloomington. Again looking tough for Obama, but really, it won't really matter.

Indiana

North Carolina (Winner: Obama)

Update: This may be SUSA's worst hour. I'm glad I abandoned them for my prediction analysis.

Update II: The MSNBC crew went to bed? CNN is still going. Props to CNN for not wimping out.

John Cole says this is how the Democratic Party will come together in the next couple of months:

Incidentally, Karl Rove said on Fox News, "I think there's a Democratic nominee now". Expect the RNC to open fire against Obama. Pretty soon, they won't have Clinton to carry their water for them anymore.

Update: I pulled the link to Cole's site since it crashed. Sorry John...

Per Marc Ambinder:

And the message to the media and to the superdelegates is:

Everybody, let's take a deep breath. Let's look at the results. Let's think hard about the choices we face. Let's not rush Sen. Clinton.

And Olbermann notes that the latest Clinton fundraising email doesn't have a money ask.

Indiana

North Carolina (Winner: Obama)