Sure, people still vote for her and send her money, but that's in part because she hasn't yet conceded that the math is against her big time.

By presenting herself as still a viable option, and more importantly presenting any calls for her concession as attacks that she must fight off, she has a lot of people thinking she still can win the nomination, based partially on the hope that Obama will make some sort of critical mistake or that his popularity will wear off, or that her initial lead in the polls will somehow come back to rescue her via the superdelegates.

Those things are possible, but none of them are likely. And now that the fight has turned ugly (possibly until today, but I'll believe this truce when I see it), the media can't get enough of it. It's not partisanship or Hillary-hate, it's just plain old rubbernecking. They were pretty happy when McCain went for Romney's jugular (and frankly, took him down pretty clinically and efficiently), and they were happy when Huckabee cane from nowhere because that caused chaos (at least until everyone remembered the name Paul Tsongas).

So in essence, both things are true. People still go see baseball teams in September that have been eliminated from playoff contention. They still root for those teams passionately. But that doesn't mean they're going to the World Series.

...and wish to expand. The tactic seems to be to take away Obama's biggest strength(s) by any means they can.

He gives a good speech? Then turn that into a negative by saying words don't matter

He has organization and a ground game? Well, caucuses and red states don't really matter anyway.

He leads McCain by a greater margin in actual swing states? Well, how can he win a general election if a majority of registered Democrats in a state where he's very competitive against McCain prefer a different candidate head to head?

He's a war hero? Get a couple of guys from his old unit to say he didn't deserve the medals, then when they start asking about my draft dodging, it'll look like a wash...oh, sorry, that was last time. I think I accidentally cut and pasted that one.

I haven't gotten through all 20 pages yet, but I'll go back and finish them as soon as I type this, so sorryif someone else has suggested this...

Look, if Joan Walsh has gotten to you and is forcing you to ignore these legitimate stories that are unflattering to Clinton, or if you're being held as some kind of ideological hostage, then we can help...

The next time you make one of those little videos for Current, blink out a code for us with your location, and we'll come bust you out.

We won't leave you behind Alex! We won't!

These debates have been the only decent thing on TV.

Plus, it'll give Alex 7 or 8 more hours of MSNBC to break down like the Zapruder film to see if Chris Matthews arches his eyebrows higher at the mention of Clinton's name.

Ok, sorry, Alex, I'll let that one go now.

that is all.

I'm a fervent Obama supporter, but I worry about this line of reasoning, specifically the branch of this line that runs our guy on "hey, it's totally ok to hate Hillary, so you should support our guy!"

Most of my handwringing comes from the fact that it's just the wrong thing to do. Democrats shouldn't hate Democrats...that's why they created Republicans (kidding!) (sort of!).

But also, the pro-Hillary camp seems to thrive on these perceived slights, so it may be bad tactics as well.

I completely agree that she and her surrogates have behaved terribly these last several weeks, and I wouldn't pull the lever for her in a primary vs. most Democrats out there. But by allowing Hillary-hating to exist as a naturally-occuring phenomenon, well...isn't that the kind of tactic that we're fed up with from the GOP? And, lately, from the Clinton campaign itself?

That having been said, if you make the positive assertion that Obama brings a lot of new voters into the process and keeps some of the McCain Agnostics at home, well...that gets the message across, doesn't it?

Again, SuperDs, please end this thing soon. All the arguments point to Obama as a more legitimate, and now better-for-the-downticket races nominee.

I think it's absolutely correct to say that "she's only where she is because she's married to Bill is a nepotism charge, not a sexist charge. It's because she's part of his family, the same as it would be if Bill's *son* uh, "Chester" Clinton (taking gender out completely, and also not wanting to get suspended by MSNBC, even though I don't work for them) was running on an "experience" theme.

By her measure of experience, by the way, there is a more qualified candidate out there. She would be groundbreaking as the first woman president. Her experience is nearly triple what Hillary Clinton's is. And she's also a "fighter." I'm talking, of course, about Barbara Bush. Think about it...

8 years as the VPs wife (Second Lady?)

4 years as First Lady

8 years as First Mother

4 years as First Mother of Texas

4(8?) years as First Mother of Florida

4 years as a Congressional Spouse

2 years as UN Ambassador's wife

2 years as CIA Director's wife

And remember how she said that the Astrodome was "working out pretty well" for Katrina victims? She's got public housing experience!

/ubersnark

This whole thing has me disgusted. As Olbermann said last night, this is now officially a pattern. Just borderline enough so as not to be overt, but certainly the dogwhistle politics of old.

And I'd love to parrot Olbermann's earlier line about how she's running to be VP...McCain's VP, but so far McCain has behaved himself much better (over/under for that is 2 weeks, but still...)

Please, SuperDs, see this for what it is. End this thing now.