Obama consistently makes the eloquent point that this primary has not been about any one candidate, and I don't think there's anyone who really disagrees with that. In a larger sense, it has been about the Democratic party and the greater progressive movement. But, in a more pragmatic sense, it has also been about who will follow the winner into the halls of power. While the policy differences between Obama and Hillary are relatively minor, the differences between their professional teams are not.

As TomP reports, Obama will be keeping Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC while installing Paul Tewes as a key strategist. This is great news, both for Obama and the party, as both men have amassed amazing strategic and organizational accomplishments. If Obama had not won the nomination, we might instead be hearing about Dean being fully replaced by Harold Ford Jr. (the same man who seemed to be the only "pundit" who thought McCain's embarrassing Tuesday speech was a successful one).

My original idea for this post was going to be something along the lines of "in attempt to prove readiness for VP position...Hillary shoots herself in face on live TV"...but on deeper reflection, and loosing the sarcasm, I think I have figured out what is going on.

And Obama supporters can breathe a sigh of relief, she doesn't want the VP slot!

Follow me over the hump to hear my 2 cents worth.

BENEATH THE SPIN    • ERIC L. WATTREE

AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY SUPPORTERS

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the inter-party squabble between Hillary and Obama supporters of late.  We may never agree on this particular issue, but I think it’s very important for each faction to understand how the other is thinking, because as the cliche’ goes,  we have much more in common than we have that sets us apart.

I posted this on MyDD earlier in response to another "fine" Alegre diary.  After a little research into "the new Wright", I lost it.

I want to preface this by saying that we should recognize that we're in a bit of a bubble here.  MyDD has as much to do with how ordinary people think about politics as any other political blog- not very much.  For all the fire and lightning we get here, it's important to remember that for many of us (myself included), politics, specifically as related to the Democratic party, are one of the most important things in our lives.  That's not your normal average everyday "I got my news at 3pm from CNN.com before I clicked back to work email" citizen.  So what seems so monumental here, on this blog, is small potatoes to 90% of folks.  I think that in a few weeks, 95% of people are going to be rallying around our nominee and ready to FIGHT McCain!

But for now, it's still the endgame.  The whole Clinton vs. Obama thing is coming to a close.  Your first choice or not, Obama is going to be our nominee.  While it won't be officially cemented until early next week, it'll be undeniable as of tomorrow afternoon.  

I've seen a lot of analysis that talks about Hillary's appeal in Appalachia, or more to the point, Obama's distinct lack of appeal there.  Related to this there's a bit of history.  It seems that, shortly after emancipation, former slaves were brought in by coal mining companies as scabs to break the hold of unions.  This, quite logically, created a lot of racial tension in these areas.  

The theory is that Hillary has won by large margins in Appalachia due to lingering racism, and I found some really stark visual evidence to back that conclusion.  Check it out after the jump.

The DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31 and decides to seat both the Florida and Michigan delegations in their entirety and allow the full assigned complement of super delegates.

That's a least favored scenario for Obama, but it could get worse: Even if the DNC seats the full delegations, how the Rules Committee apportions those delegates could favor Clinton to Obama's detriment.

Fortunately, the likelihood is that even if that happened, Obama would still win the presidential nomination.

Follow below the fold for the possibilities.

BENEATH THE SPIN    • ERIC L. WATTREE

IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?

Beneath the spin has never been more meaningful than it has become during this political season,  because it’s beginning to look like Hillary Clinton has taken it’s meaning to a new and very insidious level.  After her comment regarding Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I began to consider all the "gaffes" that both she and Bill have been involved in during this campaign, and I’ve found strong evidence that points to the possibility that Hillary has been engaged in the practice of subliminal messaging throughout this campaign.  If this is indeed the case, it makes her latest misstatement much more serious than many of us would like to believe.

BENEATH THE SPIN    • ERIC L. WATTREE

Hillary Supporter Pooh-Poohs the Mention of RFK’s Assassination
While DNC Continues to Slumber

In his Huffington Post article, "Clinton and RFK Deserve Better", my good friend, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pooh-poohs Hillary Clinton’s mention of Robert Kennedy’s assassination in the context of this election, and all the while the DNC slumbers.  

In a CNN account of a speech she made last night in Oregon. She made this statement regarding the delegate and popular vote count:

"Those are two very good indicators of how close this race is and how intense it is and why everybody should vote and why I was so determined that we weren't going to quit before we got to Oregon," Clinton argued.

The mainstream media and political pundits have properly spanked Barack Obama's confusing Presidential Primary campaign. He simply hasn't closed the deal, appealed to white working class voters, shown us that he's a regular guy, or been sufficiently entertaining.  I'd like to join the chorus of literally dozens of voices that are now calling for Barack Obama to get out of the race and go back to doing whatever it was that he did before he hogged the spotlight from Hillary Clinton.

In the meantime, we can look back and imagine the campaign he could have run if he just knew more about politics.

It's happening again.
You know what I mean- the bold predictions that Hillary Clinton will in the end come out on top of the polular vote, along with analyses that states she will not. As much as I respect Chris Bowers and his analysis at the latter link- this falls into what we know is a false narrative.
There is no such thing as the "popular vote" as a measure of support for the Democratic nomination.

Obama has had my support since my first and second choice dropped out of the race. But there is a heck of a lot sexist crap among some Obama supporters, and as Barry pointed  in Alas A Blog, it hasn't stopped.

Wil Wheaton has a post on his blog entitled "Hillary Clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party," and there’s really nothing more you need than the title to understand what the post is about.

Apparently Wheaton ended the post with this: "And allow me to just head something off right now that’s already come up on Twitter: I’m not sexist. This isn’t sexist. That’s a stupid straw man, and if you try to make that claim, I will point and laugh at you."

To which one commentator replied (still stealing shamelessly from Alas)

"Dude. You don’t get to decide what’s sexist."

We Democrats have been through about ten weeks of Hill, er, Hell.  Ever since the campaigning for votes in  Wisconsin, Team Hillary has repeatedly and intentionally sunk into the political gutter in an attempt to win the nomination by any means necessary.  We have fretted and worried about the damage she has been doing; we have also agonized about why the superdelegates have sat idly by, while we have seen the polarization in attitudes of Democratic voters towards the two contenders increase.

Partly because of the reality of the numbers game involved, partly due to the eagerness of the MSM to embrace a new meme of 'it is over,' and partly because of HRC's inability to attain any significant momentum in the past eight primaries, we are now able to see a light at the end of the tunnel that is the primary season.  How we can avoid that light turning into the headlights of an oncoming train?  My ideas for how this can all end with a united Democratic party come after the fold.

The Democratic primary has been an historic one in a number of ways. That it came down to a woman and an African-American is nothing short of amazing, and (hopefully) symbolic of a seismic shift in race and gender relations in our country. That the primary has lasted as long as it has is also one for the history books, and academics will no doubt be studying it for decades to come.

Although Barack Obama has more or less been the nominee for several weeks now, his de facto victory is finally becoming acknowledged in the MSM and with many super delegates. His main opponent's tenacity is also becoming legend; that Hillary Clinton has kept her fighting spirit even after the unexpected draw on Super Tuesday and the wave of Obama victories in February is a testament to her fortitude and sense of commitment. And although she has recently vowed to keep fighting, the nomination process is now over and Barack Obama is our nominee.

And now, it is time for reconciliation.

There's a diary picking up steam right now which asks how you plan to celebrate when Hillary Clinton finally concedes.

Now, I have no problem with celebrating Obama's victory, but many of the comments in that diary's thread bother me, because they're primarily focused on celebrating Hillary's defeat, which is a very different thing.

I've been just as prone to ripping on Hillary Clinton as anyone else here, for legitimate reason, but the moment she actually does concede the race (for real), I don't intend on spending one moment (figuratively) dancing on her political grave.

I'll say a simple "Whew!", wipe my brow, and will then move on to focusing on Obama beating McCain in November.

I did one of those Good-bye Diaries back in September 2007.  But I was wrong to do so.  What has convinced me that I was wrong?  The message of Barack Obama.  Yesterday I served as a Legal Observer for Obama for America in Gary, Indiana.  I want to share my thoughts and observations with you.

jjokeefe posted a diary earlier today called "Clinton Trumps DNC and Creates "New Delegate Math" in which the Clinton camp is once again trying to move the goal posts--this time completely out of the stadium!

Basically, they're trying to pull the "seat Florida & Michigan!" card again, now arguing that Obama would have to win 2,208 delegates (50%+1 if you include MI/FL) in order to "truly" win the nomination.

Now, this has more things wrong with it than I can even begin to count, but just for a moment, let's pretend that this argument has any merit (it doesn't).

Let's do "The Math" using Clintonball Logic and see where it takes us, shall we?

I'm honestly curious why non-states have primaries? I've got nothing against statehood if they want it, and in that case representation would obviously make sense. But as territories? - Kos

As someone who grew up in the US Virgin Islands, let me attempt a non-scholarly answer:

Representation means a lot.

For a more rounded exploration, take the jump with me.