For those still making arguments that Obama is unelectable based on current polls or otherwise, please note that it currently shows Obama up 52 electoral votes over McCain.

I don't think for a minute that this result is locked in - to the contrary.  The point is that the polls move over time, sometimes dramatically, as today's widget shows.  And there is no reason to think that Obama won't be ready, willing and able to capitalize on the pro-Democratic mood in this country to beat McCain this fall.

That is all.

OK.

I understand that there's a difference of opinion about whether MI and FL should count.  But comparing the situation in FL to ... Zimbabwe?

An idea I've heard floated is that Obama could opt out of public financing but limit contributions for the general election to $100 per person.

The more I think about this idea the more interesting it becomes.

I agree with what many of Hillary's supporters are saying - there's no quit in Hillary.  But knowing that the game is over isn't "quitting."  You don't stand at home plate after the last out in the ninth inning, waiting for someone to throw you the ball.  You start getting ready for the next game.

And there are ever more signs that Clinton has decided that the game is, in fact, over.  She's stopped attacking Obama and yesterday went out of her way to defend him against Bush and McCain.  She freed one of her top foreign policy advisers, Jamie Rubin, to write a piece defending Obama in the WaPo this morning

These aren't the moves of someone who believes Obama is unfit to be President or would be a disaster as the nominee of our party.  Nor are they the moves of someone preparing for a floor fight into August.  Good for her!

Can we please put to rest the bogus argument that Obama is not sufficiently pro-choice?  Or is NARAL not pro-choice enough either, now that they aren't supporting Sen. Clinton?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_endorsement

"Pro-choice Americans have been fortunate to have two strong pro-choice candidates in Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, both of whom have inspired millions of new voters to participate in this historic presidential race," NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a statement. "Today, we are proud to put our organization's grass-roots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Senator Obama."

Yet another reminder, if any were needed, that winning a state in the Democratic primary does not mean a candidate would win it in the general.  Hillary Clinton is going to roll up big majorities in WV and KY - against Barack Obama.  If the contest were against John McCain, though, she'd lose by double digits.

R2000: Clinton Leads By Wide Margin in West Virginia
A new Research 2000 poll in West Virginia finds Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Sen. Barack Obama, 58% to 31%, in tomorrow's Democratic primary.

However, in general election match ups both Democrats get crushed by Sen. John McCain. McCain leads Clinton, 53% to 41%, and tops Obama, 58% to 33%.  

All the usual caveats apply, because you can't be sure the election will still look this way in November.  But at a minimum, it means there is no evidence Clinton is a favorite to win either of these states in the fall.

Also: Please be clear.  I am not saying these states don't count.  I'm saying they don't count more than other states.  She'll win these states, and they're to her credit.  But she lost other states, and those are to Obama's credit.  Net, he wins.

According to Thomas Frank:

"A top Democratic source with insight into Bill's and Hillary's states of mind says the Clintons are convinced that a Democratic presidency is all but certain no matter how messy the fight for the nomination."

That rings true.  The Clintons recognize what a special, special year this is for the Democrats.  An unpopular war, a lousy economy, a Republican rival who can't shore up his base without lashing himself to W Bush.  They think even a badly damaged Democrat would win - whoever wins the Democratic primary is the next President.

That being the case, why drop out?  Not something they're going to say publicly, but doesn't it sound right?

First came the gas tax proposal that didn't make any sense.  But it sounded good, so what the heck, say it.  

Then when economists had the temerity to point out that oil companies would raise the price to maximize profit (which is kind of what companies do in a capitalist economy), and that that would mean minimal declines in price at the pump, we saw Hillary Clinton - who brags of being a policy wonk, and if I remember correctly was educated at Wellesley and Yale! - telling the people that they could have a cut in gas prices as easily as she promised.  It was only a conspiracy of "elite economists" who never want what the people want who denied it.

We heard her rattle the saber - she is prepared to "obliterate" Iraq.  And now we have her promising pure wish-fulfillment: she is going to break up OPEC!!  Because we have so much leverage over OPEC right now.

I find it impossible to believe that Clinton believes any of this.  This is just a stunningly cynical performance.