What Is Sanders’s Endgame?

When Bernie Sanders began his presidential candidacy, little was expected.  Sanders has gone on to out perform the expectations of even his most enthusiastic supporters.  That said, at this point the math indicates that he cannot win the Democrat nomination.  Thus the question becomes whether he will bow out gracefully and seek to make sure a Democrat wins the White House in November, or will his satisfying his ego be more important than saving the nation from four years of GOP misrule. At the moment, I fear that it will be the latter and that Sanders will peevishly fail to rally his supporters to the eventual Democrat nominee. A piece in the New York Times looks at this question.  Here are excerpts:

Hillary Clinton’s commanding victory in New York on Tuesday put yet another nail in the coffin of Bernie Sanders’s candidacy.

As The Upshot’s Nate Cohn put it:

“New York, like every contest at this stage, was a state he needed to win. The result confirms that he is on track to lose the pledged delegate race and therefore the nomination.”

At this pace, Clinton will finish this nomination cycle having won more votes, more states and more pledged delegates than Sanders. Furthermore, Clinton has also won six of the nine general election swing states that The New York Times listed in 2012.

And yet Sanders soldiers on, as is his right.

But Tuesday, Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told MSNBC that if Clinton doesn’t clinch the nomination by pledged delegates alone, even if she has won the most popular votes, pledged delegates and states, Sanders will still take his fight to the convention. Sanders will “absolutely” try to turn superdelegates, who overwhelmingly support Clinton, and win the nomination that way.

First, barring something unforeseen and unimaginable, there is no way I can see that this strategy stands a gnat’s chance in hell of coming to fruition. It’s a fairy tale written in pixie dust.

But still, stop and consider what this means: The purist-of-principle, anti-establishment Sanders campaign would ask the superdelegates — the Democratic Party establishment — to overturn the will of the majority of participants in the Democrats’ nominating process.

The whole idea is outrageous coming from anyone, but coming from Sanders it seems to undermine the very virtues that make him attractive.

Power — even the proximity to it and the potential to wield it — is truly an intoxicant that blurs the vision and the lines.

What Sanders has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. . . . But miraculous feats do not necessarily make messianic figures, and having a meaningful impact does not necessarily create a sustainable movement, let alone a revolution.

That said, Sanders has tapped into a very real populist sentiment on the left, particularly among young people, that shouldn’t be denied. And he has made space for a similar candidate in the future to be more seriously considered from the outset.

[T]he energy you see at Sanders’s impressive rallies, like those he held in New York, doesn’t always translate into electoral success. There seems to be a bit of a falloff.

While Sanders was campaigning in New York as a movement candidate, Clinton was campaigning as a micro-targeted candidate, appealing individually to each important demographic and burning something into supporters’ memories that they would recall when they were alone with their ballots.

That’s how elections are won. That’s how lasting change is made. It’s not by careening from one movement to the next, spawning of-the-moment hashtags for your activism.

Still, many of these young people have put their trust and faith in Sanders, who may well be a once-in-a-generation candidate, and he and they are loath to wake from the dream of his possible election. But, sadly, every day it feels more and more like a dream, and they will inevitably have to wake up.

Sanders has to figure out how he lands this doomed plane — does he set it down easy so that everyone walks away relatively unscathed, or does he go out in a blaze of glory?

Whatever he chooses to do will say quite a bit about his allegiance to his adopted Democratic Party and about his character. At the end of the day, is his ethos greater than his ego?

Can Jim Webb Run for President as the Anti-Hillary?

While he was in the U.S. Senate Jim Webb often did not vote as I would have preferred, but ultimately on key issues he usually came around.  Once, after I had lambasted him on an issue on gays in the military, I received an e-mail from his office which was astounding/flattering that someone in his office apparently read this blog.  Now, Webb - who did not seek reelection to the Senate - is making noises about throwing his hat into the Democratic presidential primary ring against the as yet unannounced Hillary Clinton.  A piece in the Fiscal Times looks at a possible Webb candidacy and how it might play against the Hillary juggernaut.  Here are excerpts:

When most politicians are asked whether they’re considering running for president, they typically toss off a quick one-liner that doesn’t answer the question and then quickly change the subject. But when Jim Webb, former Democratic Senator from Virginia, was asked the question after a speech in Washington on Tuesday, he immediately admitted he was “seriously” thinking about it.

He did so, though, in the tone of voice another man might use to say that he is considering knee-replacement surgery but hasn’t yet made up his mind whether it’s worth it.

Of course, admitting it was really his only option. Webb had mentioned a possible White House bid in media interviews before, and he had just delivered what amounted to a stump speech at the National Press Club, checking the box on everything from income inequality and improving national transportation infrastructure to criminal justice reform and the use of American military force abroad.

Webb, who served in the Senate from 2007 to 2013, has never been the most enthusiastic of politicians. He had a distinguished military career — awarded the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts — and he carried that no nonsense military attitude with him into the political arena, which is more typically full of nonsense. That reluctant demeanor worked for him in his 2006 Senate run because there was a strong “Draft Webb” campaign spearheaded by opponents of Republican Senator George Allen, who imploded during the general election for reasons that had little to due with Webb.

How much of Webb’s Cincinnatus act is real and how much is shtick is unclear — he was certainly under no obligation to turn up at the Press Club — but it may not matter. In a race against Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, his apparent reluctance gives him an angle unavailable to a lot of other potential contenders.

One thing that she [Hillary] cannot deny, though, is ambition. Hillary Clinton wants to be president. She has run for the office once, and is obviously planning on running for it again.

That, in itself, shouldn’t be disqualifying. But a savvy opponent could find a way to persuade the voting public that a desire to be president indicates an inflated ego and exaggerated sense of self-importance. Just ask Al Gore.

A candidate who is reluctantly answering his country’s call could claim a patch of moral high ground unavailable to a career politician merely looking to take the next step in a long career.

There, of course, is Jim Webb’s greatest challenge. If his plan is to run as the outsider called to serve by a country hungry for his leadership, he’s going to need a country calling out for his leadership. At the moment, it’s not clear anybody’s hearing that call except Jim Webb himself.

Hillary Clinton: Biggest Presidential Nominee FFrontrunner Ever; Will the GOP Self-Immolate?

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll reveals that Hillary Clinton has a 61 point lead over the next closest potential Democratic nominee for the 2016 presidential contest.  While things can always happen in politics, if Hillary is in fact running for president and wins the nomination, expect the GOP - especially the Christofascists and conspiracy theorists to go utterly berserk.  The downside, of course, is that if she runs and the GOP does nothing but attempts at character assignation and bashing, the likelihood is increased that many women will defect from whoever the GOP nominee may be out of disgust over the woman bashing and what may come to look like an insane anti-Hillary obsession.   First some details from the Washington Post on the poll findings:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's 61-point edge over Joe Biden in new Washington Post-ABC News polling makes her the single biggest frontrunner for a Democratic presidential nomination in the history of the poll, an affirmation of the conventional wisdom that the nomination is hers for the taking.

 Clinton stands at an eye-popping 73 percent in a  hypothetical 2016 primary race with Biden, the sitting vice president, who is the only other candidate in double digits at 12 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has signed a letter along with a handful of other Democratic senators urging Clinton to run, is at 8 percent. And that's it.

On its face, these numbers are a massive boon for Clinton -- indicative of her status as the unquestioned and, at this point, unchallenged frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. It also proves a point we -- and many others -- have been making for quite some time now: Clinton is a much larger favorite to be the nominee at this point in the 2016 process than she was at this same time (or ever) in the 2008 contest. And, while the hypothetical 2008 matchup showed three candidates -- Obama, Edwards and Gore -- with real followings immune from Clinton's frontrunner status, there is no one out there in 2016 that can make the same claim.

If you are looking for a dark cloud in these numbers  -- and, to be honest, you really have to look -- it's that Clinton has nowhere to go but down.  Assuming some candidate -- Howard Dean? Martin O'Malley? -- decides to damn the torpedoes and challenge her, it's hard to imagine that Clinton wins every primary by 60 points (although she could). Given that the prospect of a serious challenge seems, at this point, laughable, any sort of decent showing by a challenger to Clinton will receive wall-to-wall coverage -- "Is it deja vu all over again for Hillary????" and so on and so forth -- that makes the race look a lot closer than it actually is.

So what does a Hillary presidential run mean for the GOP?  Andrew Sullivan engages in some speculation.  Here are excerpts from a post here:

And whom do the Republicans have? Their centrists are pedestrian, Pawlenty-style Midwesterners with little of the personality and star power that a presidential campaign demands. I mean: Walker? Kasich? They’re solid governors, but … it’s hard to see them in the White House. The base faves – a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul – could get the nomination pretty quickly, given the new primary calendar and rules. But it would be very hard to frame a race between Clinton and, say, Cruz, as anything but a Johnson-Goldwater moment.

And then there is this from American Prospect on the GOP's irrational hatred of Hillary:

[T]here's an impulse when it comes to Hillary Clinton that presents a real danger for Republicans. There are so many things they hate about her and her husband that they barely know where to start. And that hatred could well be their undoing.

Even after all this time, and after the Clinton impeachment turned out to be such a disaster for them, so many conservatives still can't wrap their heads around the idea that other Americans don't think about that episode in the same way they do. For them, it's a tale of crime and injustice, the injustice being the fact that Bill Clinton got away with it. It goes right to the heart of what they hated so much about him. It wasn't that they had policy differences with him, though they did. What angered them so much about Bill Clinton was that he was better at politics than they were. 

[M]ost Americans don't have the same reaction. First of all, they aren't that angry about it anymore. It was a decade and a half ago. And second, their memories of the whole sordid affair are as much about Republicans going too far—an impeachment that never should have happened, Ken Starr's salacious and obsessive pursuit of Clinton, an opposition party that grew more desperate and deranged the clearer it became that they'd never take down their white whale—as they are about the President's misdeeds.

As for Hillary, well as far as they're concerned she's complicit in everything Bill did, and then you can add to that the contempt they have for her as a powerful woman. You just cannot overestimate the degree to which Hillary Clinton brings out the ugliest misogynistic feelings and sexual insecurities in so many people (not all of them conservatives, I would add). This is something I've written about before, and I'm sure I'll be writing about it again, because it's going to be a central part of any campaign in which she's involved.

There are few things more fundamental to smart political strategy than the understanding that other people may not share your beliefs, and may not have the same emotional reactions you do to certain people and events. That understanding is what allows you to make thoughtful decisions about how to persuade the number of people you need to achieve your political goals, whether it's passing a piece of legislation or winning an election. This is something Republicans often struggle with, but when it comes to the Clintons, they're absolutely blinded by hate.
 [T]he more they talk about it, the more voters will become convinced that they've taken leave of their senses.  And that, more than anything else, may be what gives Hillary Clinton such a good chance of winning in 2016. When they're looking at her, her opponents just can't see straight.

Hillary Clinton Says She Will Decide on Presidential Run in 2014

While most political junkies believe that she has already made her decision to seek the presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton told Barbara Walters that she will make her decision during the coming year.  Clinton may be playing coy, but time will tell for certain.   Politco has some highlights from the Walters interview:

Hillary Clinton says she’ll make the decision next year on whether she’ll run for president in 2016.  “I will look carefully at what I think I can do and make that decision sometime next year,” Clinton told ABC’s Barbara Walters in an interview that aired Wednesday night.

Clinton, named Walters’s “Most Fascinating Person of 2013,” said insisted she is still hasn’t made up her mind.

“It’s such a difficult decision, and it’s one that I’m not going to rush into and I don’t think we should be looking at the next election,” the former secretary of state said.  “I think we should be looking at the work that we have today,” Clinton said, noting issues such as unemployment, food stamps and the economy.

She said that for the first time in decades neither her nor her husband were in public office, and called it a relief.

When asked if Bill Clinton wants her to run, Clinton said her husband has been “very respectful” and that he wants her to “do what I think is right.”

Clinton said it is important that the country has a female president but said, “I don’t know the exact timing of it or who that might be.”  ”Of course I want to see a woman in the White House,” she added.

Obama Fatugue? - Hillary Warned Us

Remember Hillary Clinton's "3 a.m. phone call" political ad back in the 2008 primary run up that questioned whether or not Barack Obama was up to the task of the presidency? I do and, given the disaster that Obama has proven to be in the White House, I'm moving towards believing that Hillary's ads were more correct than many wanted to believe at the time - and that we should have listened to them. And I'm not the only one. Others are also hoping for a 2012 primary challenge against Obama and see Hillary as the one to be that challenger. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at this trend. Here are some highlights:

At a New York political event last week, Republican and Democratic office-holders were all bemoaning President Obama’s handling of the debt-ceiling crisis when someone said, “Hillary would have been a better president.” “Every single person nodded, including the Republicans,” reported one observer.

At a luncheon in the members’ dining room at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Saturday, a 64-year-old African-American from the Bronx was complaining about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the implacable hostility of congressional Republicans when an 80-year-old lawyer chimed in about the president’s unwillingness to stand up to his opponents. “I want to see blood on the floor,” she said grimly. A 61-year-old white woman at the table nodded. “He never understood about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,’” she said. Looking as if she were about to cry, an 83-year-old Obama supporter shook her head. “I’m so disappointed in him,” she said. “It’s true: Hillary is tougher.”

During the last few days, the whispers have swelled to an angry chorus of frustration about Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Many Democrats are furious and heartbroken at how ineffectual he seemed in dealing with Republican opponents over the debt ceiling, and liberals are particularly incensed by what they see as his capitulation to conservatives on fundamental liberal principles.

In Connecticut, a businessman who raised money for Obama in 2008 said, “I’m beyond disgusted.” In New Jersey, a teacher reported that even her friends in the Obama administration are grievously disillusioned with his lack of leadership—and many have begun to whisper about a Democratic challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination. “I think people are furtively hoping that Hillary runs,” she said.

Among many of the 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, the reaction is simple and bitter: “We told you so.”

“Remember that 3 a.m. phone call? Remember the warning about the rose-colored petals falling from the sky? Remember about learning on the job? Sure you do. Doesn’t a part of you, deep down, realize she was right?” wrote Dickinson, a political-science professor at Middlebury College. “If I heard it once this last week, I heard it a thousand times: You were duped by Obama’s rhetoric—the whole ‘hopey-changey’ thing. And you wanted to be part of history, too—to help break down the ultimate racial barrier. That’s OK. We were all young once. But now it’s time to elect someone who can play hardball, who understands how to be ruthless, who will be a real ... uh ... tough negotiator in office.

Such polls notwithstanding, insiders insist that Clinton will not challenge her president for the 2012 nomination, and many pundits dismiss the idea as political suicide. “A challenge from Clinton would be a complete disaster, both for her and for the Democrats,” wrote Jon Bernstein on the Plain Blog political site.

However unlikely a Democratic challenger might seem at present, Obama would be foolish not to heed the deep dissatisfaction represented by such speculation, which is now spreading like an ominous brush fire. Given the abundance of devastating economic news lately, he would also do well to remember the Clintons’ rallying cry from the 1992 election.

Obama Bashes Liberals and Democrat Party Base Yet Again

UPDATED: This statement by Howard Fineman at Huffington Post sums up where Obama seems to be headed in my view:

*

By staking his next two years on hundreds of billions of dollars of new or renewed tax cuts -- none of them tied directly to compensating cuts in government spending -- Obama is alienating his own Democratic base in a way that could make him what Carter was: a one-term, ineffective "outsider" president.

*

The White House and the party spin doctors it controls are putting out press releases touting all that Obama "got" in his "negotiations" with the GOP. But most of what he "got" were more unpaid-for tax cuts to go along with the $100 billion or so he waved ahead in two year's worth of tax cuts for every family making more than $250,000 a year.

*

As readers have no doubt figured out by now, I have pretty much written off the petulant Liar-in-Chief and truly hoe for a primary challenge for the Democrat ticket in the lead up to 2012. Obama lies, dissembles and fails to deliver on promises and then gets all pissy and bitchy with those who - with the benefit of hind sight - foolishly expected him to stand for something. Especially when polls show 2/3rds of Americans opposed the GOP tax break agenda. What makes it all the more aggravating is that Obama says that he "takes John Boehner at his word." Is the man a freaking idiot? Hello!! That statement makes about as much sense as Chamberlain believing Hitler's word in 1938. Many people are beyond fed up and rightfully so. Personally, I hope the Congressional Democrats find a spine and block approval of the "compromise."

*

Here's a sampling of the disgust and sense of betrayal, first John Aravosis' take via America Blog Gay in the wake of Obama's capitulation to the GOP on the extension of the Bush tax breaks:
*
Taking hostages. It's the only thing the President understands. He said so himself today. It's always been our working theory that the President only responds to those who are willing to stand up to him, while friendship gets you nothing. The President, Senator Reid, HRC and the apologists have three more weeks to get the DADT compromise passed. Because after that, it's hostage taking time.
*
And then there's Dan Rather's analysis via MSNBC and Mediate:
*
Rather, speaking on MSNBC’s Jansing & Company said an extension of those cuts will infuriate the left and lead to a Democratic primary challenge against the president in 2012: This is a political nightmare for Barack Obama as president. The more-left portion of his party hates this with a passion. And politically, within his own party, if this goes through, Barack Obama will be in a position to have his shirttail on fire, his back to the wall, and the bill collector at the door. Which is metaphorically a way of saying he’s almost guaranteed — if this goes through — to have a serious challenge in a Democratic primary for president in 2012.
*
The perception of [Obama] is that he won’t fight for anything… Many of the heavy contributors to the Democratic Party are beyond shock about this happening, and are saying to themselves, ‘This guy . . . has about four to six months to turn the perception of him and the party around or we’ve got to start thinking about somebody else in 2012.’

*
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka likewise slammed Obama's spineless sell as described in The Hill:
*
The AFL-CIO's president condemned President Obama's deal on tax cuts as an "unconscionable" giveaway to wealthy interests. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka slammed the tax deal and joined the ranks of liberals who have expressed disenchantment with the president for having agreed to the two-year extension of all expiring tax cuts.
*
"Two years ago, working Americans had high hopes that we would ultimately emerge from the deep, punishing financial debacle with a sharp focus on a fundamentally stronger, fairer and more balanced economy," the labor leader said. "Today, that vision has dimmed."
*
"It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle-class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country’s wealthiest families,"

*

As Think Progress reports, even former GOP Congressman, now newscaster, Joe Scarborough went ballistic over the "compromise":
*
SCARBOROUGH: It is stunning to me that this president has extended Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. This progressive president has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan. This progressive president, that you say worries about deficit reduction — just like Republicans say they worry about deficit reduction — on the week the debt commission gets skewered . . . Barack Obama and the Republicans added a trillion more dollars to that debt in one weekend. [...]
*
The Republicans aren’t interested in cutting the deficit. [...]
*
I would love my political opponent to take the position we’re going to extend tax cuts for millionaires that even the CBO says is not going to create new jobs. And yet they’re going to cut off unemployment benefits for families at Christmastime. Please! Please. Seriously?! That’s like Mohamed Ali fighting against Princeton’s boxing champ Alan Merryweather– it’s an easy battle
*
The clear lessons from this capitulation on taxes are (1) don't expect Obama to fight for anything, and (2) don't believe ANYTHING this president says. I am beyond disgusted.

Hillary Finally Concedes

I guess better late than never, but I believe Hillary made a big mistake in her petulant refusal to concede last Tuesday. Now she has some distance to go to make amends and help reunite the Democratic Party which she so deliberately tried to split. Conceding and exiting with class helps one's legacy and also helps position one for moving forward. Today, Hillary fortunately belatedly embraced the more classy approach. Time will tell whether or not she will carry through and really support Obama and help the Party sweep to victory in November. Some commentators have been pretty harsh, myself included. I'm willing to wait and see if she redeems herself. Others see here as beyond redemption, like Peggy Noonan:

*

It is the most amazing thing that a young black man who was just a few short years ago unknown to most of his countrymen—really, unknown—could, this week, win the presidential nomination of one of our two great political parties. It is even more amazing that this historic news could be overshadowed by the personal drama and spite of the woman who lost to him.

*

I like it that she spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it's so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she's a woman.

*

We will hear a lot of tasteful tributes this weekend to Hillary Clinton's grit and fortitude. The Washington-based media may go a little over the top, but only out of relief. They know her well and recoil at what she stands for. They also know they don't like her, so to balance it out they'll gush.

*

But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him. We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

*

Andrew Sullivan, while not Clinton lover, was a bit more kind. Here's his analysis:

*

Senator Clinton did all she needed to do: thanked everyone and unequivocally endorsed and supported Barack Obama. One theme stuck out to me: she essentially said that even though she was careful to avoid ever saying that she was running because she was a woman and that people should vote for her because she is a woman, that's what she believes in private. That's the theme she spoke of most compellingly. She is Ellen Malcolm's spiritual sister. In the end, Clinton remains wedded to the identity politics of her generation and her time. It's a powerful message after so many long decades and centuries in which women have been denied full equality in law and society. It's a necessary message and a moral message. But it becomes circular and self-defeating when it becomes its own rationale.

*

She is a very talented politician but it was her fate to find her career hemmed in by two even more talented ones: Bill and Barack. She made up for it all with enormous hard work, diligence and ruthlessness. At any other moment, she would have won. But this is history and politics at the highest level. You cannot defeat such a moment if you are a Salieri. And she had to deal with two Mozarts.

Obama to Claim Democratic Nomination

Like many others, I am awaiting news updates to confirm that Barack Obama has tied up the nomination for the Democratic Party. Yes, I have been very harsh on Hillary Clinton throughout the primary contest and, I believe rightfully so. Having once run for public office myself and lost by a slim margin after a very nasty campaign, I know all too well how much losing hurts. It is literally a personal rejection no matter how one views it. However, how one accepts that reality of losing and how they carry on going forward says it all about the losing candidate. In Hillary's case, she has failed the test and come up short, looking like a delusional nut case rather than losing with class and dignity.

*

I truly pray that Obama will NOT offer her the Vice President slot. She has proven herself to be a sleaze bag just like her husband, Slick Willie, and having her in the number 2 slot has the potential for disaster. I'll be right up front and state that if I were Obama I'd be worried that Bill and Hillary would have me assassinated, making it of course look like some white supremacy group was responsible. I do not like Hillary nor do I trust her as far as I can throw my Jeep. In addition, having her on the ticket could well alienate many cross over GOP voters who might otherwise support Obama. As for the disgruntled older women supporting Hillary who might support McCain over Obama, I predict that should McCain win the election and add reactionaries to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hillary will go down in history as having severely damaged the nation. I hope all these so-called feminists enjoy a return to back alley abortions and the re-passage of sodomy laws nation wide. Meanwhile, here are highlights from MSNBC on Obama's plan to claim victory:

*

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois prepared to claim the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night after The Associated Press said he had won a majority of delegates to the party’s summer convention. By doing so, he shattered a barrier more than two centuries old to become the first black candidate ever nominated by a major political party for the nation’s highest office. “Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States,” Obama planned to say in a victory celebration in St. Paul, Minn., at the site of the convention that will nominate his Republican opponent in the fall, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

*

Obama, 46, of Illinois, bested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in a historic campaign that sparked record turnouts in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party. Throughout the day, as superdelegates fell into Obama’s column, speculation increased that McCain could be facing an Obama-Clinton unity ticket.

*

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a prominent Clinton supporter, told NBC News that “certainly to the extent that she will do anything to win ... she’ll be available.” “She’ll do whatever is needed,” Rangel said. “If people think it would help, she’d do it.” Lisa Caputo, a longtime Clinton adviser, said Clinton “knows the math just isn’t there, so everybody needs to be a realist.”

Robert Reich Endorses Obama

Former Clinton Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, has endorsed Barack Obama, becoming another former high level Clinton administration official to say a definitive "no" to Hillary Clinton's ruthless ambitions. I agree with his reasoning and assessment of what Hillary's campaign has become. It is disgusting and under no circumstances can the country afford a Clinton restoration. We need a president with some level of integrity and Hillary fails that test badly. Her vile nastiness and caving in to the worse type of GOP tactics will be her own undoing. Here are highlights of Reich's comments from New York Magazine:

*

I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters.

*

Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past twenty years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."