Apparently, Goodyear agreed.

Shortly after 4:00 p.m. this afternoon, the Republican National Convention announced that it had accepted Goodyear's resignation, setting a new land speed record for shortest time lapsed between the "story breaks" and "ax falls" phases of a political scandal. "Today I offered the convention my resignation so as not to become a distraction in this campaign," said Goodyear in written statement. "I continue to strongly support John McCain for president, and wish him the best of luck in this campaign." Asked later by the Politico whether Team McCain had given him the boot, Goodyear said no. "My decision," he added. "[It was] unambiguously the right thing to do."

Ironically enough, though, Goodyear defended his involvement with the brutal Burmese regime in Isikoff's original story. "It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," he told NEWSWEEK at the time, adding that the junta's record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."

Funny how the spotlight changes things.

1. An ad from John McCain, running Sunday on EstrogenTV (A&E, Hallmark Lifetime, Oxygen)

2. A video for Hillary Clinton--"loving and devoted" mother--from Chelsea.
"And remember your little girls can be everything they want to be in America when they grow up," she says. "Even if it's the second woman president."  Wink, wink.

 
3. And from Obama? Nothing yet. Perhaps that's because his mother passed away in 1995--and he's not a mother himself. Still, there's Michelle, and grandma Madelyn Dunham...

Leave it to a busy young man to wait until the last minute.

Isn't American politics grand? 

When Barack Obama ordered a locally-brewed Yuengling at a Pennsylvania sports bar back in March, he made sure he was sending the right message. “Is it expensive, though?" he asked a male patron. "Wanna make sure it’s not some designer beer or something.” Of course, the point of chugging a cold one with the cameras watching is to show that even though you're freakish enough to want to lead the free world, you're also fake in touch with the working man. So "designer beers" won't do. Which is why when Obama showed up at the Raleigh Times pub on the eve of this week's North Carolina primary and asked "Where's my beer?", he faced a potentially disastrous conundrum. Turns out the Raleigh Times is a hard-core beer-snob hangout known for serving premium brews like Dogfish Head Palo Santo Marron and Avery Maharaja. (D'oh.) So Obama did what any self-respecting, Maureen-Dowd-dreading politician would do: ordered the only "downscale" beer that's ironically hip enough to be served in an upscale brewpub. "PBR," he said--Pabst Blue Ribbon. What instincts. 

But Obama has a problem going forward. His next big contest is on May 20 in brewery-rich Oregon--where PBR won't cut it with the suds-obsessed locals. In fact, at a stop in Beaverton today, a few supporters openly mocked his proclivity for Pabst (video above). "When in PBR land, you drink PBR," he explained. "What's the beer of choice in Oregon?" IPA, someone shouted. "IPA?" Obama asked. "Is it good? We're gonna have to try some of that." In terms of Average-Joe street cred, Obama acquitted himself well; by not recognizing the acronym IPA (India Pale Ale), or knowing that it's a type, not a brand, of beer (like, say, stout), the Illinois senator demonstrated an admirable lack of beer snobbery. But Oregon is justly proud of intense local micobreweries like Deschutes, Hair of the Dog and Rogue, the last of which makes ales flavored with chipotle, chamomile and juniper. So if Obama wants to keep his IPA promise and please Oregonians, it appears that he may have to risk shattering his carefully cultivated "Larry the Cable Guy" image--and indulge in one of the state's "designer" drinks.

Luckily, we here at Stumper headquarters--beer snobs all of us--are happy to help. If Obama is forced choose an IPA before the 20th, we recommend Rogue's I2PA, or Imperial India Pale Ale. What it lacks in working-class grit it more than makes up in pure alcohol by volume (9.2 percent=two PBRs). The only hitch? Flavor. I2PA is heavy on the hops, meaning that it's floral, citrusy and--brace yourself, Barack--uncommonly bitter. But then again, so is every other IPA. So it looks like you're stuck.

Paging Maureen Dowd...

Elise Amendola / AP

Here's my NEWSWEEK colleague (the indomitable) Suzanne Smalley with a dispatch from the Clinton roadshow in Oregon. Despite speculation to contrary, Suzanne reports, the candidate is actually "escalating her rhetoric" against Obama.

At a rally in Central Point, Ore., last night, Hillary Clinton didn't leave any doubt that she's still in it to win it. She challenged Barack Obama to a debate in Portland on Friday, where they'll both be campaigning, saying she'll meet "absolutely anytime, anywhere." She stressed her knowledge of controversial local issues, saying Obama is on the wrong side of them. And she taunted Obama for talking a good game without backing it up, not unlike, Clinton said, President George W. Bush.

"My opponent voted for legislation … which gave more tax subsidies to the oil companies, more tax subsidies to the nuclear industry, and which took away the right of states to determine whether [liquefied natural gas] terminals would be placed along their coast. So there's a lot we should be debating about," she told a raucous crowd of about 1,000 supporters. "Back in 2000 some people voted for President Bush because he went around telling people in settings like this that he was a compassionate conservative. Nobody knew what that meant, did they? But it sure did sound good."

... 

The New York senator's resilience and unflinchingly broad smile belied her grim circumstances, three days after she failed to perform well enough in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries to turn the race around. Despite her strong rhetoric, it is now clear that Clinton can't win the Democratic nomination unless the superdelegates overturn the popular vote and Barack Obama's pledged delegate lead. Even if Florida and Michigan votes are fully counted, Clinton still will finish the primary race behind Obama in pledged delegates. How then does the campaign justify continuing?

To hear Clinton's chief superdelegate hunter Harold Ickes tell it, Clinton is continuing the fight because she's convinced she can beat McCain. Clinton has refused to come out and say Obama can't beat McCain (when pressed to by several debate moderators, she has demurred). But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Ickes strongly suggested that Obama can't win come November. "We have to remember McCain is not a standard, off-the-shelf Republican," Ickes said, echoing the argument he says he's making to superdelegates, and pointing up Clinton's inarguable strength with Roman Catholics, Hispanics and elderly voters in key November battleground states such as Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. "He will have a lot of appeal for Hispanics. He'll trounce [Obama]."

The pool of uncommitted superdelegates—numbering 230 or so--being wooed by the Clinton camp are worried about Obama's general-election viability, Ickes said. He stressed that if Obama can't win Florida or Ohio—both states in which he has polled less favorably than Clinton—then states like New Mexico and Nevada will take on more importance. And Ickes suggested Obama can't win in those places either. "Big Hispanic populations," Ickes said. "If you look at the reach she has from a general-election perspective, she is a much stronger candidate. She has a much stronger base in swing or Purple States and she has a much stronger base to get to 270."

Clinton has also started mentioning race more frequently. In an article published yesterday in USA Today, Clinton said she would have a larger group of voters to draw a winning coalition from because "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." What happened to playing nice? Even as surrogates have called for a less bitterly fought campaign, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein publicly warned Clinton yesterday that she is concerned about the "negative dividends" of the contest. Some advisers have been quoted speaking privately about plans to keep the campaign's tone positive going forward. But the candidate only seems to be escalating her rhetoric.

READ THE REST HERE. 

You'd think he was running for Toastmaster. Standing in front of a wall of glass last night with the lights of midtown Manhattan sparkling behind him, John McCain put aside the petty sniping of the campaign trail and asked the elite names gathered for the Time 100 Gala--Dan Senor, Campbell Brown, Rahm Emanuel, Paul Wolfowitz, Lance Armstrong, Brian Williams, Joe Scarborough--to raise their glasses to his Democratic opponents. "Senator Obama is a man of unusual eloquence, who has performed the very worthy service of summoning to the political arena Americans who once wrongly thought it of little benefit to them," he said. "Senator Clinton has demonstrated great tenacity and courage; two qualities I have always esteemed. I count myself among their many admirers. Please join me, then, in a toast to my opponents and compatriots, Senators Clinton and Obama, and to the noisy, contentious, striving, beautiful country we hope to lead." Somewhere, a bald eagle shed a single tear.

Kidding aside, McCain's kind words would've been almost enough to warm the cold cockles of this cynic's heart--if, a mere two hours earlier, top aide Mark Salter hadn't slammed "Obama's new brand of politics" as "hypocrisy." "First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity," wrote an incensed Salter in a memo to reporters. "It is the oldest kind of politics there is."

Dizzy, anyone? Welcome to the High/Low campaign. For politicos salivating over the start of the general-election slugfest--or those of you simply eager to turn the page on this interminable Democratic primary contest--yesterday provided a tantalizing preview of what a McCain-Obama face-off will look like come fall. Think split-personality disorder. Politics, of course, is about competition, and every politician needs (and, in truth, wants) to throw a few elbows. McCain and Obama are no different. But both of this year's candidates have built their unusually strong political brands on the perception that they are, in some sense, "cleaner than thou": McCain is the honorable, straight-talking war hero bent on reform and eager to reach across the aisle; Obama is the vibrant, youthful catalyst of a new politics of unity rather than division. The result: a race in which each candidate burnishes his brand by constantly stressing his own civility--but instead of refraining from attacks on his rival, simply attacks his rival's every remark as evidence that said rival has broken his promise to be civil. You're a typical politician! No, you're a typical politician! First the high, then the low.

Yesterday's prototypical spat started on Wednesday, when McCain appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and defended his earlier characterization of Obama as Hamas's candidate of choice. ""Do you feel bad that you said that?" Stewart asked. "They think I’m their worst nightmare," McCain replied, noting that a U.S. Hamas spokesman had confessed that the group was hoping Obama would be elected president. "And I think that I’m their worst nightmare as well." McCain was trying, of course, to contrast his considerable foreign-policy cred with Obama's relative inexperience--a contrast that he hopes will define the campaign. Sure, one could make the case that McCain, who called for "civil campaign" in early April, was crossing some sort of line. After all, Obama's position on Hamas is indistinguishable from McCain's--he says it's a terrorist organization and refuses to negotiate unless they recognize Israel and renounce violence. What's more, there's something slightly unfair about suggesting that Obama is soft on terror simply because some Hamas spokesman thinks he will "lead the world community... with[out] domination and arrogance." But I'd say McCain's swipe is hardly a gross moral outrage--and it's certainly no worse than Obama constantly mischaracterizing McCain's support for a passive, South Korean-style military presence in Iraq as "100 years of war."

Predictably, Obama saw it differently--and that's when the cleaner-than-thou festivities began. Speaking to Wolf Blitzer yesterday on CNN, he reacted to McCain's remarks with a theatrical show of pity. "This is offensive," he said. "And it's disappointing, because John McCain always says he's not going to run this kind of politics, so to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate." Oh, the sorrow of it all. But Obama wasn't done. "It's an example," he added, twisting the knife, "of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination." By "losing his bearings," Obama meant, of course, that McCain was betraying his maverick rep by pandering to his party's hawkish right-wingers for his own political gain--which is a pretty edgy attack in and of itself. But the McCain camp quickly accused him not of straightforward nastiness but of (gasp!) subliminal ageism--the more Machiavellian charge. "Let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today," wrote Salter. "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue." A-ha!, he practically crowed. It's Obama who's the sketchy pol--not McCain! Team Obama's response, via spokesman Bill Burton? "It’s clear why a candidate offering a third term of George Bush’s disastrous economic policies and failed strategy in Iraq would want to distract and attack, but it’s not the kind of campaign John McCain has promised the American people that he would run." Broken promises, blah, blah, blah. After which Burton added, "Nanny nanny boo boo."

The truth is, both Obama and McCain are engaging in what Salter called "the oldest kind of politics there is"--attacking their opponent, distorting his record and sending out surrogates to question his integrity. It's just that they've both premised their campaigns on civility--and thus are both relying on "incivility" (rather than, say, issues) as the prime ammunition for their attacks. On the Today show yesterday morning, McCain's wife Cindy insisted that her "husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all." "I believe we're going to see a great debate, which the American public deserves," she said. "None of this negative stuff, though, you won't see it come out of our side -- at all." Sorry, Cindy--if yesterday was any indication, we're in for plenty of negativity before November. I'm not sure a slapfest over who has the least integrity is what America wants right now. But I fully expect McCain and Obama to keep making every effort to claim the high ground--even if they have to take the low road to get there. 

Cheers.

Sure, no one likes a braggart. But in this case, we couldn't help ourselves.

"Could Money Woes Eventually Force Clinton from the Race?", Stumper, April 3, 2008
"Clinton's Cash Woes Continue," Stumper, April 21, 2008
It's clear from Clinton's FEC filings that she's barely breaking even. Even though the New York senator raised more than $20 million in March, and reports having more than $30 million in cash on hand, she's only allowed to use $8 million of that war chest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary... With more than $10 million in debt, Clinton is technically in the red, and she's spending money as fast as it comes in ($22 million disbursed in March versus $20 million raised). Meanwhile, Obama has $51 million in his vault--with a full $45 million available for the primary. Going forward, this matters... It's not that money determines electoral outcomes. Obama massively outspent Clinton in Texas and Ohio and still lost the primaries; Clinton will likely win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico despite the dinero differential. But pecuniary perceptions are important... "If Clinton is perceived to be in financial peril, she becomes a much less attractive investment for donors deciding where to give their money"... As the clock ticks down, Clinton will have fewer chances to gain delegates and votes, and Obama will appear more and more inevitable. Wins in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6--hardly a sure thing, but possible--would only accelerate that process. All of which is to say that if Obama "looks like the nominee" at some point before the convention, Clinton's financial intake may flatline. In that case, she probably won't have the rainy-day money necessary to keep fighting (unless it's more of her own).

"Short of Cash, Clinton is Forced to Cut Spending," New York Times, May 9, 2008 
Mrs. Clinton’s diminished political momentum, following Tuesday’s loss in the North Carolina primary and her narrow victory in Indiana, appears to have had a dampening effect on her fund-raising, aides said, increasing the likelihood that Mrs. Clinton will lend her campaign more of her own money beyond the $11 million she has already provided. Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary... Mrs. Clinton had been increasingly relying on Internet donations this spring from new and small-amount contributors; the day after she won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the campaign brought in a record $10 million online. But Hassan Nemazee, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen, put the amount she collected online in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries at only “$1 million-plus" ... Top fund-raisers working for Mrs. Clinton said that enthusiasm among donors had fallen sharply and that they had little confidence there would be a financial turnaround. They said that some donors had questioned why they should give more money when another set of numbers — the calculus to win enough delegates for the nomination — seemed so against Mrs. Clinton at this point.

In other words, the "rainy day" has finally arrived--and for Clinton, the only money left is "more of her own."

A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

THINKING ABOUT NOVEMBER
(Paul Krugman, New York Times)
What can be done to heal the party’s current divisions? More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal. Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance. After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop. One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan — representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November — seats at the convention. And to the extent that campaigning matters, Mr. Obama should center his campaign on economic issues that matter to working-class families, whatever their race. The point is that Mr. Obama has an extraordinary opportunity in this year’s election. He should do everything possible to avoid squandering it.

OBAMA SEEKS TO UNIFY PARTY FOR NOVEMBER
(Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon, Jr., Washington Post)
Returning to Washington yesterday, Obama was mobbed by well-wishers as he walked onto the House floor. But behind the scenes, his campaign worked with a light touch to win over uncommitted superdelegates and allies of Clinton, mindful of not appearing overconfident and of the fact that they would need the backing of the candidate, her husband and their supporters in the fall. With numerous prominent Democrats believed to be waiting in the wings to endorse his candidacy, Obama appears poised to win the pledged delegates and superdelegates he will need to claim the Democratic nomination as early as May 20, when Kentucky and Oregon vote.

CLINTON ASKS SUPERS TO COMMIT IN PRIVATE
(Ben Smith and Amie Parnes, Politico)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit to Capitol Hill this week may have been more about weighing her support than it was about wooing superdelegates. According to a senior Democratic aide, Clinton asked some uncommitted superdelegates if they could commit to her privately--without the political risks of a public endorsement--so that she could gauge whether she has the support she feels she needs to remain a viable candidate... One Clinton supporter familiar with the meetings described the senator's "ask" as "vague" ...Obama, by contrast, took the Hill by storm Thursday. In the morning, he met with a large group of uncommitted Blue Dog Democrats [the House moderate and conservative coalition] at a townhouse owned by UPS. Then he walked over to the House and spent half an hour working the left side of the chamber, shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures. In the afternoon, he spent nearly three hours at the Democratic National Committee, where he met with a number of superdelegates, including four North Carolina congressmen. “We seem to be making progress,” Obama told reporters after his meetings ended on Thursday.

MORE: Obamamania Sweeps the Hill (Ryan Grim, Politico)
As Obama made his way slowly through the House mob, reporters piled up outside the nearest door to the House floor, craning their necks to get a look. Security guards pressed through the media crowd, repeatedly asking the Fourth Estate to keep a lane open for lawmakers. Supporters and opponents alike maneuvered to get face time, whether it was 73-year-old Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) patiently waiting his turn or Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter, giving Obama a big hug. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) had the man autograph today's copy of the NY Daily News. (Cover: "It's his Party.") Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), a Clinton backer, and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) gave him bear hugs on the floor, as well. Even Republicans were star-struck. Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said she was escorting a group of elementary school students onto the House floor when Obama made his entrance.

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, NO 'CLEAR PATH TO VICTORY'--NOR TO AN EXIT
(Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times) 
She's darting around the country like a full-fledged presidential candidate, but within Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's circle of advisors and donors, the conversation has turned to how she can make a dignified exit from the race. But for all the signs of normalcy, much of the infrastructure that keeps the New York senator's campaign going -- the aides, donors and political allies -- is resigned to the hard reality that the Democratic nomination now appears out of reach. One Clinton aide said Thursday: "There is a profound sadness" among the staff. "I don't think anyone sees that there's a clear path to victory here."... Ultimately, an aide said, Clinton will decide with her husband what to do; staff won't be consulted on so momentous a decision... Some members of Clinton's circle are thinking through the conditions under which she might concede the race. One supporter familiar with the campaign's operations said that Clinton wanted to go out on a positive note -- say, after winning in West Virginia and Kentucky, whose primaries are May 13 and 20, respectively.

MCCAIN SETS STAGE FOR FALL RUN
(Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes, Wall Street Journal)
Sen. McCain received the gift of time to lay the groundwork for his fall campaign, as Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought each other for the Democratic nomination. Now that the Democratic fight appears to be nearing an end, the Arizona senator will soon find out how effectively he used the time. Sen. Obama already has begun pivoting toward the general election. Soon, he is likely to unleash attack ads aimed at defining Sen. McCain. With vastly more money, Sen. Obama will be able to flood the airwaves as voters are forming impressions. 

At 3:15 p.m. this afternoon, "Hillary Clinton" sent a "letter" to "Barack Obama"--and hundreds of reporters--asking that he "join [her] in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls" in those disputed primaries. The point? To force her foe to agree that the January votes in the Great Lakes and Sunshine States were legitimate and that their delegates should be apportioned accordingly--which, since she "won" both contests, would undoubtedly benefit her. Anything less, she implied, would be undemocratic.

Seeing as "Barack Obama" has yet to give "Hillary Clinton" his answer, I thought I'd supply one for him:

"Why not?" 

Of course, the Obama campaign has its fair share of objections. For starters, there's that pesky, old-fashioned, admittedly absurd notion known as "following the rules." The Democratic Party prohibits any state other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding its primary before Feb.  5. So when Florida and Michigan threatened in late 2007 to pull the trigger on Jan. 15 and Jan. 29, respectively, the DNC gave them a choice: reschedule--or lose your delegates. They refused, hence their current no-delegate status. According to critics, reinstating those delegates now would undermine the DNC's authority over the nominating process; who will stop Guam, they say, when it schedules its primary for Thanksgiving 2012?

The second reason: last winter, both Clinton and Obama deferred to the DNC and agreed not to "campaign or participate" in either election; Obama even removed his name from the Michigan slate. So while Clinton "beat" her rival 50-33 in Florida and trounced "uncommitted" 55-40 in the Great Lakes State, one can't help but suspect that not campaigning and/or not appearing on the ballot somewhat affected Obama's showing--not to mention that turnout has a way of declining when voters are told that the election doesn't matter.

Finally, there's the stubborn little fact that Clinton completely opposed recognizing Michigan and Florida until after the primaries--i.e., when she realized she might need their delegates to win the nomination. "It's clear that this election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything," she said during an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio in October 2007. She wasn't alone. Two months earlier, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes actually voted to strip the rogue states of their delegates as a member of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee--"to prevent the gaming of the system," he said. Later than fall, Patti Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, pledged not to compete in either contest--and was unequivocal as well. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process... and the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role," she said. "Thus, we will... adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar." And when Michigan pushed for an early vote in 2004, then-DNC chairman--and current Clinton aide--Terry McAuliffe put his foot down. "If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," McAuliffe said (at least according to his memoir)."The closest [Michigan's delegates will] get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules." But when Clinton "won" Michigan on Jan. 15--and presumably caught a glimpse of the polling that showed her well ahead in Florida--she quickly changed her tune. "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election," she said on Jan. 25. "And so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan." Ickes, Solis Doyle and McAuliffe immediately fell in line.

So I'd say it's understandable if the Obama campaign doesn't seem particularly eager to dole out Florida and Michigan's 300 pledged delegates in accordance with each state's illegitimate popular vote--after all, Clinton would be gaining far more delegates than she deserves (and enough, her campaign seems to think, to keep her candidacy alive). But a little logic--and back-of-the-envelope math--shows that Obama has nothing to lose by giving Clinton what she wants.

Here goes. In Florida, the former First Lady "won" 105 delegates to Obama's 67, while in Michigan Clinton "won" 73 to uncommitted's 55. For the sake of argument, let's award all those uncommitted votes to Obama. That brings his two-state total to 122; Clinton gains 178. Has she caught up in the current pledged-delegate count? Nope. Obama led 1589 to 1424 before, according to RealClear Politics; he now leads 1711 to 1602. What's more, it's impossible for Clinton to close the gap by June 3--even with Florida and Michigan in her column. Assuming she wins 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates--a very generous assumption, considering that Obama is heavily favored in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana--she'd still trail by 55 (2059-2004) at the end of regulation.

In other words, close but no cigar. With Florida and Michigan in the mix--and the new magic number set at 2,209--both candidates would still need some superdelegate support to cross the finish line. In this case, Obama would wind up 150 short of a majority, a setback from the 88 he'd need if the rogue states weren't included in the count. But the news for Clinton is worse. Believe it or not, in my Florida/Michigan/60-40 fantasy scenario she'd wake up on June 4 further from the nomination than if we'd just given her 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates and left Florida and Michigan alone. That is, 205 superdels short vs. 199.

And if it was difficult to imagine the superdelegates choosing Clinton over Obama before he conceded Florida and Michigan--he's outpaced her five to one among them since Super Tuesday--just imagine how inconceivable it would seem afterward. Obama will have taken the highest possible road. He will have allayed any lingering fears about alienating local voters in the fall. In an unprecedented (and unwarranted) show of magnanimity, he will have awarded Clinton every disputed delegate she could ever want--even the ones from a primary where his name didn't appear on the ballot. He will have offered a big, fat olive branch to all of her supporters. And he will have eliminated her last rationale for staying in the race. If you think the superdelegates will side with Clinton after that, think again. As Bob Buckhorn, a pro-Clinton consultant in Tampa, told the St. Petersburg Times today, such a move "could potentially open the floodgates for superdelegates to come on board, if he was that gracious and that comfortable in his inevitability."

Again, Obama has nothing to lose. I'm not saying he has to give in to Clinton, or even that he should. For Florida, his campaign is pushing a 50-50 delegate split instead, and Clinton has already refused to honor the Michigan state party's proposed 69-59 compromise--which shows that she, for one, has no intention of meeting anyone halfway. My point is simply this: Obama will win the nomination no matter what happens with Florida and Michigan--and may win it sooner, and in better political shape, if he lets Clinton have her way.

So why not?

Of the many differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, here's the one that may prove most consequential come November: McCain has to come to the money; with Obama, the money comes to him.

Case in point. Last night, the Arizona senator came to the Sheraton in midtown Manhattan--not exactly swing-vote central--for one of the biggest fundraisers in New York political history. And by "big," we mean "most expensive." Scoring tickets to the main cocktail reception? $2,300. Getting into the VIP pre-party for a photo with McCain? $25,000. Having the honor of serving as one of 19 "co-hosts"? $100,000. Hearing Rudy Giuliani speak? Priceless.

By the time Henry Kissinger, Al D'Amato, Donald Trump, insurance titan Hank Greenberg, Blockbuster founder Wayne Huizenga, corporate raider Carl Icahn and former Democrat Joe Lieberman (along with 800 other supporters) left the building--the $100,000 crew also attended an afterparty at the home of Jets owner Woody Johnson--McCain had reportedly pocketed a cool $7 million.

The problem?

Well, setting aside the fact that the official McCain campaign can only accept a fraction of that total--anything over $2,300 per person goes to a hybrid "Victory" committee that redirects individual contributions of up to $70,000 through various McCain-centric funds--it's all, like, totally 1996. For comparison's sake, consider Obama's February fundraising haul: $55 million. That's $2 million a day, every day of the month. Because the vast majority of the moolah ($45 million, to be exact) came from hundreds of thousands of online donations of less than $200 each, Obama didn't have to waste valuable campaign time pleading with money men. Instead, he was out on the stump, winning over voters. Not only is McCain frittering away his credibility as a campaign-finance reformer by relying on a combined fund designed to skirt the very limits he himself put in place, but he's spending far more time and energy fundraising than Obama ever will—and still raising far less cash (as in, $40 million less each month). Unless his staff can somehow organize two $7-million galas per week for the remainder of the race, that disparity will continue through Election Day.

I wouldn't put my money on it.

Apparently she wasn't touched enough. On Wednesday morning, McClellan announced that she had switched her allegiance to Obama. "I think the time has come to support Senator Obama as the likely nominee," she said in a conference call with reporters. "Given what happened last night, it's very unlikely we will have a different result, and it is time to come together as a party and prepare for victory against John McCain in November."

She's not alone. In the 36 hours since Clinton lost the popular vote in North Carolina--and the expectations game in Indiana--a growing number of her supporters haven't been particularly, um, supportive. As McClellan told the Politico, "there are many of us who believe--regardless of who we endorsed--that if Sen. Obama goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, and doesn't get the nomination, that could cause problems." On Wednesday, George McGovern--the former South Dakota senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee--jumped ship for Obama. Meanwhile, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton superdelegate, told the Los Angeles Times that although "I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I'm very loyal to her... I'd like to talk with her and get her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is." Feinstein's reason? "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party." When asked yesterday whether Clinton should stay in the race, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, another vocal Clinton backer, sounded equally glum. "It's her decision to make and I'll accept what decision she makes," he said.

And the hits keep coming today, with two additional pro-Clinton pols adding their voices to the chorus. In an interview with The Hill, Rep. Dale Kildee, a Clinton supporter from Michigan, said the New York senator should halt her campaign and carefully consider whether it makes sense to keep going. “I urge her to take the day off and think very seriously about doing what’s best for the country and best for the party,” said Kildee. “I got straight A’s in math." His Congressional colleague from Florida, Rep. Alcee Hastings, agreed--“It’s improbable to suggest she’d be at the top of the ticket"--and gave Obama "a big hug" this morning on the House floor. (Another Clinton superdelegate, Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, asked him to sign the cover of today's New York Daily News, according to the Politico. Headline: "It's His Party.") Even some of Clinton's advisers are now "resigned to their candidate’s likely loss," according to the Wall Street Journal. "They have turned in favor of her bowing out for party unity, according to several who asked not to be named.”

Could this sudden flurry of high-profile supporters-turned-skeptics force Clinton from the race? Don't count on it. As we've already written, she's made something of a moral cause of letting the remaining states vote and finding a solution to the Florida and Michigan dispute--and she isn't exactly the type to let the naysayers get under her skin. One possible reason: her supporters may "find it easier to accept Obama as their nominee if they were satisfied that Clinton was not pressured to drop out and had exhausted every conceivable opportunity to make her case." So barring the biggest (and most inconceivable) superdelegate switcheroo of all--that is, Bubba, her hubby, the former president--we're still betting that Hillary will continue to campaign at least until the end of the month.

How "touched" she is by the current show of support is another story.

Here's my colleague Sarah Kliff on whether Obama will help or hurt Democrats in local races.

Mississippi's 1st Congressional District is an unlikely political hotbed. Reliably Democratic territory for a century, the northeastern corner of the Magnolia State went Republican in 1994 and has stayed that way. In the last decade, incumbent Roger Wicker has routinely cruised to victory with margins of 30 percent. But when Gov. Haley Barbour appointed Wicker to fill out the unexpired term of retiring GOP Sen. Trent Lott last December, things got competitive. In a special election held late last month, conservative Democrat Travis Childers and Republican Greg Davis were the top vote-getters, but neither captured the majority needed to clinch a victory. So the two are headed into a May 13 run-off that suddenly has both national congressional campaign committees focusing on Columbus, Tupelo and the surrounding counties.

The seat hasn't drawn such scrutiny simply because it might flip from red to blue. It's also attracting attention because the Davis campaign and the National Republican Congressional Committee have run ads linking Childers, who touts his pro-life, pro-gun credentials, to Barack Obama. "[Childers] took Obama's endorsement over our conservative values," a Davis ad claims, pointing out that "when Obama's pastor cursed America, blaming us for 9/11, Childers said nothing." An NRCC ad calls Obama's voting record "the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate."

"I see the kind of issue differences you want, experience differences you want" with an Obama candidacy, says NRCC Chairman Tom Cole, a representative from Oklahoma, about his organization's ad. "I think that will hurt Democrats down ballot."

It wasn't supposed to be this way. At the outset of the campaign, Hillary Clinton was thought to be more of a liability in down-ticket races; she would presumably ignite deep-seated Republican distaste for the former First Lady. Obama was supposed to be the fresh-faced newcomer without any baggage. As one former senior aide to President Bush told NEWSWEEK in January 2006, "He's scarier than she is because nobody says a bad word about him." But after hitting a rough patch in recent weeks, Obama's campaign seemed less scary--and the GOP started trying to tie congressional Democratic candidates to him, in hopes of dragging them down. "There's no question he's an extremely attractive personality and is a very articulate person," says Cole. "But there's not much experience there and there's a decided bent to the left."

The ads were cut prior to Obama's triumphant Tuesday night, when he won handily in North Carolina and nearly upset Clinton in Indiana. Those showings ratcheted up pressure on Clinton to exit the race--and could conceivably alter the local dynamics of his campaign. Cole's spokesperson, who was contacted anew Wednesday morning, declined an opportunity for the NRCC chair to amend the comments he made in an interview prior to the primaries. And in some ways, Obama's fresh burst of momentum may only stoke the GOP's determination to yoke down-ticket Democrats to a presidential contender they see as excessively liberal--and weak among the kinds of white, blue-collar voters who could be key to the outcome of the general election this fall.

Cole's group used the same tactic this past weekend in Louisiana's 6th District, where there was a special election between Democrat Don Cazayoux and Republican Woody Jenkins (Cazayoux won the race by 3 percent). The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says the ads failed. "I think their strategy fell on its face," says DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen, a representative from Maryland. "What they did was try to test-drive this idea of nationalizing the races behind national political figures and that crashed and burned." The NRCC points to polling showing that Cazayoux's lead dropped significantly in the days leading up to the vote. In a press release following Cazayoux's win, the NRCC characterized their numbers as a harbinger of the "potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall." Both national campaigns emphasize that special congressional elections do not pivot around these ads, which are one element in a campaign centered on local politics.

READ THE REST HERE.

A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

SUPPORT FOR CLINTON WANES AS OBAMA SEES FINISH LINE
(Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times)
As adamant as Mrs. Clinton appeared on Wednesday, several advisers said that how long she would stay in the race was an open question. Some top Clinton fund-raisers said that the campaign was all but over and suggested that she was simply buying time on Wednesday to determine if she could raise enough money and still win over superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who could essentially hand Mr. Obama the nomination... Other advisers said in interviews that her campaign was nearly out of cash, raising questions about what kind of campaign she can continue to run... Clinton advisers said they were concerned that the candidate’s online fund-raising, which boomed after her victory in the Ohio primary in March and in Pennsylvania in April, had slowed by comparison on Tuesday night and Wednesday, and that her donor base was either tightening somewhat or playing wait-and-see, despite her public appeal for money on Tuesday night... One Clinton adviser said the campaign was struggling to arrange meetings with large numbers of uncommitted superdelegates. This adviser said that at least a few superdelegates might not want to meet with Mrs. Clinton because they did not want to hear another pitch or because they had all but decided to go with Mr. Obama.

MORE: Democrats Seek Graceful Exit for Hillary Clinton (Los Angeles Times)
Dogged by defections and signs of financial trouble, Hillary Rodham Clinton faced a significant shift Wednesday even among supporters as talk turned from how she might win to how she can end her presidential campaign gracefully.

EVEN MORE: Hillary's Strategy of Last Resort (Los Angeles Times)
Unable to revive her presidential campaign at the polls, Hillary Rodham Clinton now envisions a road to the nomination built on disputes over Democratic Party rules and fights over delegate selections. But on Wednesday even that route looked unattainable, with some key party officials warning that they would not cooperate with Clinton's strategy. 

THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM: Clinton Spurns Calls to Quit Race (Washington Post)
Another Clinton adviser said that there is at best a 10 percent chance that she will end her candidacy before the last primaries, on June 3. Privately, however, several advisers acknowledged that her route to the nomination has become far more difficult as a result of Tuesday's voting. "It's narrowed," said one adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. This adviser said the fundamentals of the race had not changed as much as perceptions of Obama's prospects for winning. "It's just that the atmosphere shifted, as it shifted in her favor coming out of Ohio and again after Pennsylvania," the adviser said. "It's shifted back. Not to where it was pre-Ohio, but there's been a substantial shift back." Garin said the real change is in the commentary about the race. "I think that there are pundits who think she should get out," he said. "She has faced those calls before and has continued onward."

OBAMA'S GOT A CONFIDENT NEW STRATEGY
(Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times)
Barack Obama hasn't managed after months of political combat to force Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the presidential race, so he's about to try another approach: ignoring her. Confident that he has built a near-impregnable lead, his campaign aides said Wednesday that Obama would begin shifting his focus toward the general election. Obama still plans to campaign in states that remain on the primary calendar -- he is to appear in Oregon over the weekend -- but he may also start showing up in states that are considered important in the November contest: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. (All three have held their Democratic primaries.) With Clinton's hopes of capturing the Democratic nomination dimming, Obama needs to prepare for the prospect of a general election matchup with the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, aides said. "Everyone is eager to get on with this," said David Axelrod, the Obama campaign's lead strategist. "We've got to multi-task here . . . Sen. McCain has basically run free for some time now."

A TRAIN WRECK IS COMING ON MAY 20
(David Paul Kuhn, Politico)
Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to dispute it. It’s a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race. 

OBAMA'S SHOWING RESHAPES DISPUTE OVER DELEGATES
(June Kronholz, Wall Street Journal)
Tuesday's primaries may not have settled the Democratic nomination, but they may have settled the problem of whether to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida at this summer's convention. With a procedural clock ticking, the Democratic Party's rules committee will hear challenges on May 31 to its decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their convention votes as punishment for holding out-of-sequence primaries last winter. A rules-committee decision that returned the two states' 338 convention seats could swing the nomination to Hillary Clinton, and is one of the few remaining scenarios by which the New York senator could beat rival Barack Obama. But Sen. Clinton's inability to derail Sen. Obama's campaign Tuesday may have strengthened the Illinois senator's hand with the rules committee, some committee members say. The likelier outcome now, they predict, is a decision to seat enough Florida and Michigan delegates to confirm Sen. Obama's nomination, but not so many that they could swing the nomination to Sen. Clinton.

 

Remember the old saying, "'tis better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all"?

It doesn't apply to presidential politics.

In yesterday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries, the burden of proof was on Hillary Clinton. To counteract Barack Obama's indestructible lead in the pledged-delegate count, she needed to give superdelegates fresh evidence that Obama had a fatal flaw--namely by showing that the good voters of North Carolina suddenly favored her after initially favoring him.

The Clinton campaign clearly recognized this--and gave North Carolina their best shot. In the wake of Clinton's April 22 win in Pennsylvania, they dispatched top field operative Averell "Ace" Smith--the architect of her triumphs in the Texas and California primaries--to run the Tar Heel State show. Known in political circles as a guy who "always brings a gun to a knife fight," he immediately predicted that N.C. would be the "upset of the century" and launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign. Soon, Clinton herself was hyping the looming primary as "a game-changer," and polls showed that Obama's once-commanding lead had shrunk to single digits. With the state seemingly in her grasp, the former First Lady sent her secret weapon--husband and former president Bill--on his Barbecue Tour: a frenzy of old-fashioned front-porch rallies in the tiny, mostly-white hamlets of rural North Carolina, where his patented Southern charm could presumably scare up the votes needed to surprise Obama on Primary Day. "Let the commentariat lament, or laugh, about Bill being sent out into the sticks," wrote Byron York in the National Review. "For Hillary, the sticks are where the votes are."

Yesterday, I caught up with the president at Durham's North Carolina School of Math and Science for his final stop. Red in the face, with saggy eyes and a halo of mussed, overgrown white hair, he clearly "look[ed] exhausted," as one schoolteacher put it. And with good reason: in recent weeks, Bill had made 56 appearances in North Carolina, including 19 in the last three days alone. "Even when I was younger," he told a supporter on the rope line, "that would've been a lot." Still, he was in fine form. Approached by a pregnant woman, he touched her bulging belly and as