The media has been in this for their own benefit all along. The American public has a thing for winners; it makes them money, and thus the dynamic becomes what it has. The talking heads don't have any "right" to tell us what oughtta happen... except they keep saying it, and they keep generating ad revenue like no tomorrow.

Now, the "voters" (some anyway) don't want her out of the race, certainly. Although Obama had his share of blowout wins, and keep in mind that voters in places like West Virginia (the only place I've got firsthand knowledge of) voted in large numbers against Obama, rather than for Clinton- she still wouldda won, the demographics favored her, but it doesn't tie as closely to your argument as you're making it sound.

Now, I've never been an Obama supporter to demand she leave the race, now!!!! Look what we've gotten- four million new voters registered, Democratic infrastructure where it never existed before, fundraising records, etc. And Senator Clinton, perhaps unintentionally, has made Barack Obama a better prepared candidate for the general election than he would've been had she dropped out after the Wisconsin primary. When Obama wins, it will be in no small part thanks to Senator Clinton.

The media doesn't want Hillary out because it has a financial interest in having the nomination continue.  Of course the media would love for the nomination to go to the convention -- floor fight and all -- with the suspense of an unknown floor vote outcome.  That's in the media's financial interest.

Also, there aren't many voters left.  We have PR, MT, and SD left.  That's it.  And because we have so little voting left, Barack Obama's lead -- although close by historical margins -- is insurmountable.  The superdelegates would prefer to allow Hillary to exit on her own terms, but should she make statements like the one she did yesterday, insists on seating in full the FL/MI delegations, and refuses to drop out one week after the SD/MT primaries, the superdelegates will unhappily write Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign's obituary.

Here is the story of how everything went down.

The Wall Street Journal was kind of enough to pimp the parties involved in this catching fire.

Please read this and get back to me.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/24 how-clintons-comments-didnt-then-did-ca tch-fire

What did Obama have to do with anything?

the MSM has almost completely ignored the fact for over two months now that Hillary had virtually no chance to win the nomination, save some utterly unforeseen personal tragedy.

Go back to right after Wisconsin and Hawaii voted on February 19, and from that point forward, try to figure out some path for Senator Clinton that's more favorable than it has been without something even more damaging than the Reverend Wright story was.  Because at that point, the rest of the states were set.  I wrote my DK diary on February 25 where I correctly called the delegate winner of every contest between then and now ... because they were essentially all set back then.

The media chose to largely ignore it.  Sure, on MSNBC or CNN, they'd give 2 minutes to Chuck Todd or John King to say something like "well, she needs 68% of pledged delegates" but that was never translated to, "well, in the format of this election, that means there's no chance."  The news outlets just continued to act like it was in doubt long, LONG after it ceased to be by any rational analysis.

It's called the First Amendment, idiot.  Live with it or go to China.

about how there is no way Hillary could be the VP after this. So, apparently they were looking for a molehill to make that mountain possible. They don't just want her out of the primary, they want her out of sight and out of mind. How dare she spoil their predictions and narrative? And they probably think that if they can say later on that she was a lock for VP until she suggested Obama be assassinated, her supporters will be mollified and flock to Obama.

He has been focusing on McCain generally, but he hasn't ignored Senator Clinton in deference to her stature and her supporters. Tell me you wouldn't be up in arms if he ignored her completely.

She can't "win", per se; she could be named the nominee, certainly, as we're all quite aware after yesterday, but if something were to make Barack Obama unelectable, she certainly would be our first pick. As I explained above, I haven't wanted her out of the race, and have been glad she stayed in. Most Obama supporters would agree with me. So your brush is broad and inaccurate there.

Now, three of those gaffes you mentioned have happened in, what? The last week? And the Sunni/Shia thing was mentioned, but widely ignored. So your point is pretty much shot there- they only happened after the media, as so many have decried, have done their post-mortem on Clinton's campaign.

I have been calling for him to treat her as irrelevant for weeks.  I believe the reason he has not done that has nothing to do with the miniscule chance she has.  It has everything to do with not wanting to look like he is ignoring the woman in the race.  He can't look like he is ignoring her or every female Hillary supporter will be up in arms about the patronizing Obama.

(sporadicaly)

Love that word there. Obama pays no attention to Hillary.

He's been warming up with Bush and McCain for some time now.

From ABCNews:

The Obama campaign's decision to target Clinton's RFK reference forced the former first lady to express regret for her remarks.

Target. Interesting. How did they target these remarks:

No such "presumption of good faith" was extended to Hillary Clinton on Friday.

When Clinton referenced RFK's assassination while discussing previous Democratic nomination fights which stretched into June, she was quickly scolded by the Obama campaign.

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," wrote Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a missive to reporters.

Burton's e-mail included a link to a New York Post story which noted that Obama, who received a Secret Service detail early in the campaign, has been the subject of threats.

HA!!!!  Please... you slay me.  Jerry Brown?

Clinton had all but secured the nomination in March.  California put him over the top in June, but that was a foregone conclusion.  The situation isn't at all similar.

they won't say "Senator Obama defeated Senator Clinton in June". Historians look back at defining moments and "the moment" when it became impossible for someone to change the outcome - that moment was after the twelve victories and a lead that was made statistically impossible to overcome.

So while both then-Governor Clinton and Senator Obama will wrap the nomination up "officially" in June, it will be the February contests pointed to as when David defeated Goliath.

Otherwise, everyone would just say "Well, technically, he didn't win the nomination until the roll call at the Democratic National Convention on [insert date]".

Which would be retarded. But I know quite a few direly hope that that is the case. And I cannot stress enough that Senator Clinton winning is not worth the Democrats losing in November, which is what going to the convention means. And that goes for Senator Obama as well.

Whoever leads is who the superdelegates will put over. And that's going to be fortunately for me, unfortunately for others, Senator Obama.

You are quoting an op-ed style blog post.  That isn't a news story.

Gee... I hope we can reach people like you, that say stuff like this...

Half the party doesn't care what you think and we're the half that live in blue states and actually elect real Democrats to the White House. Guess you're just gonna have to suck it up and wait for the convention because most of us think your candidate is the biggest loser we've seen since McGovern.

How's Rezko's trial going?

Talk about Rovian.  Look in a fucking mirror.

Way too far?

Please tell me you're not serious.

One single sentence release in response to numerous press inquiries, condemning the remarks in about as mild terms as you can condemn remarks, followed by Obama surrogates on the talking-head shows defending Sen. Clinton, is "way too far"?

What, pray tell, wouldn't be too far?  Is it possible for anything the Obama campaign does to be acceptable to you?

You want to know why?  Because NO Democrat has carried the election with a majority of the white vote in four decades.

You want to keep framing things this way, there will be a blackout come November.  I defy HRC to steal the election.

And no one is. The race will end in two weeks and we'll have our nominee.

the primary contests, threatening to take it the convention, then the Superdelegates have every right to make it impossible for her to get anything accomplished at the convention by putting Senator Obama over the top by an even further insurmountable lead.

It works both ways. Senator Clinton isn't free to run until the cows come home. There are end-dates and hers just happens to be June 4th and maybe a little longer if she's lucky.

No one has forced her out of the race, no one can force her out of the race. If she weren't a multi-millionaire, she would be out of the race several months ago, but since she is self-financing, she could keep campaigning all the way to 2012 if she wants to.

The fact that she keeps running doesn't mean that people keep treating her campaign seriously. Look at how the media treated Huckabee once it was hopeless (puzzled, amused contempt and frequent plays of his comment that he didn't believe in math, he believed in miracles) or the media's treatment of Jerry Brown in 1992. Yes, it took Clinton until June to get the majority of delegates, but Brown was treated as an irrelevancy and a joke after it became clear that Clinton would get the nomination.

No one has, and no one will... at least until enough superdelegates declare their support for Obama that the Clinton path to victory is mathematically impossible without some form of natural disaster.

Or are you suggesting that even if enough SD's declare for Obama to make her victory impossible without flipping them, she should stay in and continue to say stupid things like this until August, rather than our united party firing as many broadsides at McCain as we possibly can?

So?  There are HUNDREDS of people calling for Obama to drop out on MyDD alone, and he had an insurmountable lead.  Talk about stupid.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, there are people who called on Clinton to drop out. They aren't forcing her out of the race. It is impossible to force her out of the race.

Ah, wrong comment of mine.

You are right. I meant that no one would be calling for her to drop out of the race at this point if not for her gaffe. Her former supporters are objecting to her advocacy for fully seating MI/FL, but I think everyone agrees that if she had managed to continue to campaign as she has since shortly after "hard working Americans, white Americans" then her staying in would have been good for the party.

Will you get behind the winner when they reach the magic number in two weeks?

The crickets ...Anna Shame has no answer...typical isn't it?

I read it, but Al has a diary about it now.  Sorry I didn't get back to you in time to avoid being scolded and called out. Oh well, it's rough out there and more seem to think I have to answer faster and more clearly  their own candidate?  

Donna has championed the Clinton campaign and her right to continue it at EVERY juncture - as well as the benefits to the party of her continuing.  She and Begala cleared up that bit of confusion during the discussion on the show that night and it is not fair to continue to characterize her statements as alienating the older base when she clearly used the word "expand" - eg. build on the existing base while adding new voters and young voters to the fold.

Play the victims if you must, but need you try to trash all of the party leaders in the process?  Either way, Hillary's legacy deserves more than to be casted as some bipolar mix of latter day helpless victim unable to defeat her misogynistic naysayers and a never-say-die winner who will take it to the convention if she must.  Her entire career heretofore has predicated on her strength and I find it very unappealing to watch that trait be conveniently whitewashed in the interest of political posturing.

Let her be the strong fighting Hillary and let those who support her champion her as such.  How does it help her or we women to regress into victimhood in this situation?  I just don't get it...