OverClinton.com

In the aftermath of the March 4th primaries a key talking point of the Clinton campaign is to forget about the delegate count because Hillary's primary victories in "big states," demonstrates that she can win states that the Democrats must win in November.

This argument makes me nuts. Viewed in isolation, how does a primary victory against another Democrat say anything about how either primary candidate would run in that state in the general election? Bill Clinton lost the primaries/caucuses in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, but won them all in November, 1992.

The day after the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, the Clinton campaign issued a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." But rather than explaining how Hillary would win the nomination, the memo listed a series of arguments as to why she should run against John McCain.

The reason there's nothing about her path to the nomination, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait writes, is that "Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive."

The folks at A Bag Full of Health and Politics have a great analysis of the divisive effect on the Democratic party of Hillary's win-at-all-costs tactics. After a recap of the smears and insinuations directed at Obama, we're reminded that the Clintons were never very progressive.

In December the Clinton campaign confirmed that a county chair in their Iowa campaign operation had passed along the now well-known right-wing smear email alleging various falsehoods about Obama's education and religion.

Darrell Murphy of Livingston, TX wrote the Houston Chronicle on Monday, March 3 (the day before the Texas and Ohio primaries):
Barack Obama's fate will probably be decided today in the Texas primary by Republicans like me. It is my intention to vote for Hillary Clinton, hoping she will win Texas and Ohio.

If this happens, she could still be the nominee for her party, and John McCain would beat her like a drum come November.

An Obama organizer in Collin County reported to OverClinton.com that on March 4:
Early in the morning, one or two people came out of the polling station (I was giving out caucus information to both Hillary and Barack people), and grinned at my Obama sign. One of them even said to me: "I am a Republican and I have just cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. This is the best way to defeat the Democrats..." I said to him: "That is so perverse and it is not good for the democratic process in Texas and in this country..." He smiled and said: "But it works...."

The Washington Post asks "How does a Harvard professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author manage to blow up her brief political consulting career over the use of the phrase 'off the record'?"

One can debate the tactics or propriety, but it's clear Pulitzer-prize-winner Samantha Power was expressing a sentiment widespread within the Obama campaign, and among many staunch Democrats. She's a monster.

Here's the Post story in full.

What a gift Hillary has given to McCain. Why do I feel like it's Ralph Nader all over again? The numbers that showed both Obama and Clinton with a significant margin over McCain have shrunk and now the best chance in nearly a decade to be free from an oppressive, Republican-driven administration is in jeopardy. Someone called Hillary a monster in public. Guess what, Clinton has posed Obama as Ken Starr, a muslim, a terrorist - where is it written that she can only be regarded as a saint while continuing to throw erroneous bull at Obama's good name?