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...

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.

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.

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.

And by "she," we don't mean Syesha Mercado.

After Barack Obama's sizable win in North Carolina and virtual tie in Indiana, it's the question on the tip of every political tongue this morning: will Hillary Clinton continue her campaign--and, if so, for how long? Last night, the Clinton camp had two goals: either a) make massive gains in the delegate and/or popular-vote tallies, where Obama holds solid advantages or b) perform well enough--perhaps with a win on Obama's home turf in North Carolina--to sow further doubts about his electability among the remaining superdelegates. Clinton accomplished neither. In Indiana and North Carolina, Obama racked up a net gain of 15 pledged delegates and about 210,000 votes, enough to pretty much erase Clinton's Pennsylvania advances (12 delegates, about 214,000 votes). And the climb only gets steeper from here. The remaining six primaries--West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota, Montana and Puerto Rico--award a total of 217 delegates. Assuming that Clinton wins 60 percent of those delegates and Obama only 40 percent--a very generous assumption, given that the Illinois senator is heavily favored in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana--Clinton will close out regulation with 1,823 delegates to Obama's 1,932. That means that he'll need 93 (or 35 percent) of the remaining superdelegates to reach 2,025 and clinch the nomination; she'll need 202, or 76 percent. The problem? Despite Rev. Wright, Bittergate and three consecutive major primary losses, Obama has picked up 100 superdelegates since Super Tuesday--and Clinton has swayed fewer than 15. Robbed of any momentum she had going into last night--and with Obama arguing that his strong showing demonstrates his durability--it's almost impossible to imagine her reversing that trend now.

Still, the senator from New York looks likely to soldier on. As I flew from Raleigh to New York this morning, Team Clinton worked diligently to regain its footing. Confirming rumors about the campaign's flagging financial health, Clinton aide Howard Wolfson admitted during a media conference call that Clinton had given herself a series of new loans that (unlike her first $5 million bail out back in February) were probably drawn from her joint assets with Bill--$5 million on April 11, $1 million on May 1 and $425,000 on May 5, for a grand total of $11.4 million. Meanwhile, at least one high-profile Clinton superdelegate supporter--former presidential candidate George McGovern--switched his allegiance to Obama and called on her to drop out. But the Clintonites seemed undaunted. On the call, chief strategist Geoff Garin called Indiana "a close outcome, but an outcome about which we feel very, very good"; suggested that Clinton had made "progress" in North Carolina; and continued to stress the candidate's strength among blue-collar voters, which he now explicitly called the "white electorate." A half-hour later, Obama's staff and supporters made sure to remind reporters on a conference call of their own that Clinton has no "legitimate" mathematical path to the nomination; that Obama's performance among working-class voters actually improved in yesterday's primaries; and even that the much-discussed "Limbaugh Effect" may have accounted for Clinton's narrow, 18,000-vote margin in the Hoosier State. But not one of them was willing to say she should quit. "It would be inappropriate and awkward and wrong for any of us to tell Senator Clinton when it is time for the race to be over," said Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a prominent Obama supporter. "This is her decision and it is only her decision... What we don't want to do right now is be disrespectful." 

And that's as it should be. At a stop this afternoon in Shepherdstown, W.Va.--hastily scheduled at 3:00 a.m. last night to quiet speculation that her withdrawal is imminent--Clinton told the crowd that she will run "until there's a nominee." But her stump speech had changed since Indiana and North Carolina. Gone were the gas-tax broadsides--and the hard contrasts with Obama. This was her straightforward economic pitch, plain and simple. In his forward-looking address last night at Raleigh's Reynolds Coliseum, Obama focused most of his fire on John McCain--and seemed to offer Clinton something of a truce. "This has been one of the longest, most closely fought contests in history," he said. "And that's partly because we have such a formidable opponent in Senator Hillary Clinton.  Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided--that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her. Well, I'm here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it... This primary season may not be over, but when it is... we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country." Unable "to sustain a full-out, combative campaign -- to stay on offense, and to raise the money it takes to do so," as Ben Smith puts it--Clinton seems to have accepted his offer. As she said last night, apropos of nothing, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party." The harsh attacks may well be over.

For the remainder of the month, then, expect Clinton to continue her twilight campaign. She's promised to run until every state votes, and until the question of Florida and Michigan is resolved, which won't happen until the DNC's Rules Committee meets on May 31. I imagine she'll keep those promises. Until then, let's all relax. With more votes and more delegates than any Democratic or Republican runner-up in American history, Clinton has every right to reach the finish line. And as long as she continues to make her own case, as she did today in Shepherdstown--and doesn't attempt to destroy Obama--it probably behooves the 51 percent of the party that supports her rival to respect the 49 percent that doesn't.

UPDATE, 3:34 p.m.: The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has "seven reasons why Clinton should stay in the race"--and "seven reasons why Clinton should quit, now." All 14 of them are smart, so you should definitely take a look.

Two excerpts:

Stay # 4. The Ask. Does Clinton want to be Obama's vice president? Who knows? But does Clinton want to be asked whether she wants to be his vice president and thus be in a position to decline it? Surely. The more Obama is reminded that Clinton cannot not be dispensed with, the more pressure he will feel to at least solicit her views on the subject of the vice presidency.

Go # 1. It's over. Forget the sideshows and the hypotheticals. Once the party has its nominee, and only then, can the process of healing begin. The longer Clinton stays in the race, the more she postpones the point at which the party comes together.

Here's the wrap-up story I co-authored with Michael Hirsh and Suzanne Smalley:

Asked whether he thought the race was over, Axelrod avoided answering—but made it clear that he's not exactly perched on the edge of his seat. "The math is the math," he said. Gibbs chimed in: "The fact is, there are fewer delegates left to win in the primaries than superdelegates still up for grabs," he said. "From this point on, Sen. Clinton would have to win 70 percent of all the remaining delegates, both superdelegates and pledged delegates, to reach a majority. And as far as superdelegates go, just looked at what we've rolled out since Feb. 5. That's a tall order."

Indeed. Over at Clinton headquarters in Indianapolis, as the returns rolled into the Murat Centre, a crowd of supporters chanted "Madame President!" while Hillary's essential anthem played in the background: the Journey song "Don't Stop Believing." Hillary, by all appearances, has never stopped. But with her disappointing split decision, the woman who had been confidently comparing herself to a never-say-die fighter in recent weeks is sounding desperate once again. True, in her victory speech, Clinton brazenly declared that "it's full speed onto the White House." But she also pleaded for more funds against "a candidate who spends massively."

And now, even more than money, Hillary badly needs a new campaign narrative, a new way to persuade undecided superdelegates to back her. Utterly gone with the wind—blown somewhere off the coast of North Carolina—was the hopeful Clinton scenario heard in recent weeks. This was the idea put forward by the Hillary camp that Obama was fatally damaged by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy and other campaign mishaps: that he had become all but unelectable against John McCain.

Obama's decisive win Tuesday in North Carolina—all the sweeter for his supporters coming after Bill Clinton campaigned doggedly in small N.C. towns—destroyed that Clinton conceit. Despite exit polling that suggested Obama had been seriously damaged by the unpopular remarks of his former pastor—even after his sharp remarks last week distancing himself from Wright—the Illinois senator appears to have contained the crisis and resumed his march to the nomination.

In fact Obama probably emerges from Tuesday night even further ahead in the delegate count than he was when the voting began. Now the Obama camp is arguing that he can secure the nomination, perhaps as early as May 20, the day of the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. They hope that by that date Obama will finally have an insurmountable majority of pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses, and that this will trigger a stampede of undecided superdelegates in his direction, giving him the 2,025 total delegates needed for nomination.

In response, the Clinton campaign has been once again, changing the parameters. In recent days they have newly emphasized the number of delegates they believe are needed for nomination: 2,209. This includes the currently barred Florida and Michigan vote totals (as her supporters chanted during her Indiana speech, "count the votes! Count the votes!"). But with the National Democratic Committee rules committee in charge of the decision whether to sanction those primaries, which were disqualified because they held their votes in violation of party rules, it's questionable whether that argument will persuade undecided superdelegates.

The Clintonites could take the battle to the convention floor by appealing to the DNC credentials committee, which gets named eight weeks or so before the convention. Clinton's team could ask the credentials committee to take up the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates and make a recommendation to the convention floor. If she is close enough to Obama after all the contests end that Florida and Michigan votes could make a difference, she could choose to take her fight all the way to the convention floor.

Now the Clintonites are simply begging the superdelegates not to "short circuit" the process, as strategist Harold Ickes puts it. And they continue to make the argument that Obama is still so unknown and untested that, just as the controversial comments of Wright haunted him late in the primary season, new unsavory facts could come out if he runs against McCain in the fall. "We don't need an October surprise," Ickes said. "We know a great deal about Hillary. There is no October surprise with her and the last five or six weeks speak for themselves not only through momentum, but a number of other issues have arisen."

Yet even as Obama contemplates his long-awaited victory, he must question whether it will prove to be Pyrrhic. One disturbing result out of Tuesday's election was how divided the traditional Democratic base has become after three months of negative campaigning since Super Tuesday. In North Carolina, a stunning 92 percent of African-Americans went for Obama, while white non-college-educated workers went decisively for Clinton. Either candidate will need the full support of the other part of the base to win in November. The question is whether feelings have become so bitter that either candidate can rouse them.

Obama, in his victory speech, insisted that would not happen despite the "bruised feelings" on both sides. "This fall we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party," he said, because "we can't afford to give John McCain a chance to serve out George Bush's third term." It was, perhaps, the beginning of his general election campaign. And it was appropriate, perhaps, that at Hillary's rally a broken confetti machine failed to spew shredded paper and instead just sputtered smoke, which quickly disappeared.

READ THE REST HERE.
 

Here's my NEWSWEEK colleague Jonathan Alter's take on the meaning of the May 6 primary results:

Last week, not a soul in politics would have predicted that Obama would win North Carolina by 14 points and virtually tie in Indiana. But through a combination of luck and smarts, the campaign ended on the theme that Obama ran on: Old politics vs. new politics.

By conventional standards, Clinton was in the groove, focusing on bread-and-butter issues and pummeling Obama for being out-of-touch with angry motorists. Many pundits reported that "the working girl" was "on fire" and on the move.

Traveling around North Carolina and Indiana, I wasn't sure. But two things struck me as encouraging for Obama. First, I went to a big Clinton event in Indianapolis on Saturday night and noticed there were no more than a handful of African-Americans in a crowd of several thousand. For all the talk about white blue-collar workers (a group that gave only 41 percent of its votes to Bill Clinton in 1992), the most important demographic group this year was unquestionably black women, who were expected when the campaign began to split 50-50--but have been going 90-10 for Obama. That boded well in North Carolina. A woman candidate cannot win the Democratic nomination without at least some African-American women. Period.

The second encouraging sign for Obama was the candidate himself. His press conference denouncing Wright didn't end the issue for good, but it did put enough distance between himself and Wright to help neutralize the damage. More important, Obama's decision to push back on the gas tax actually worked. Refusing to pander reminded his base among college-educated voters of the reasons they liked him in the first place.

It also helped Obama recover his rhythm. After watching him sink some baskets on Sunday, I had a few words with him. "I feel really good about that [the gas tax position]," he said. "We had veered into the conventional, and now we're back." This was a huge gamble and it paid off.

In the end Obama showed the kind of resilience that was supposed to apply only to the Clintons. Between May and November, Obama will have other low moments. But now he has some experience surviving them.

READ THE REST HERE.

... Matt Drudge casts his vote:

 

Once upon a time, the New York Times could gush about the strange new synergy between Clinton and Drudge, a former family foe. Not anymore, apparently. Absurd as it is, the fedora'ed-one's eponymous site exerts an enormous influence over MSM editors and producers--meaning that "The Nominee" might very well be tomorrow's storyline.

RALEIGH, N.C.--According to every network but CBS, Indiana is still too close to call.

If Clinton wins, expect to hear more from the Obama camp about Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." Obama spokesman Bill Burton has only sent reporters two notes tonight--and both referenced El Rushbo. Here's the latest:

According to the latest exit polling data, 17% of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain matchup.  41% of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7% of the primary electorate--the number that may be attributed to a "Limbaugh Effect." 

The point, of course, is to convince reporters--like the New Republic's Jonathan Chait, who confirms Burton's math--to pursue this line of reasoning. If Clinton ekes out an Indiana win, Burton and Co. want the wrap-up stories to suggest that Dittoheads may have (more than) accounted for her margin of victory, thereby delegitimizing it with the only audience that still matters: superdelegates.

Still, Team Obama might not be forced to rely on such spin. With 85 percent of precincts reporting, there are still no results from Lake. The second largest county in the state and the most overwhelmingly African-American, it's home to Gary, the industrial southern satellite of Chicago. If patterns from the rest of Hoosier Country hold, Obama is likely to rack up a sizable, double-digit margin there and slash into--or even erase--Clinton's four-point lead. Also worth watching: Monroe County, home of Bloomington and Indiana University, where Obama is up 66-34--with only 43 percent of the vote in. 

Perhaps that's why, as the Clinton campaign sent reporters a memo calling her "victory" in Indiana "incredible," Clinton herself took the stage in Indianapolis later and less surely than expected--and, looking somber, and promised to work to pull the party together ""no matter what happens."

Developing... 

UPDATE, 12:01 a.m.: The Washington Post's Alec MacGillis talks to the mayor of Gary:

"Let me tell you, when all the votes are counted, when Gary comes in, I think you're looking at something for the [world] to see," [Rudy] Clay, an Obama supporter, said in a telephone interview from Obama's Gary headquarters. "I don't know what the numbers are yet, but Gary has absolutely produced in large numbers for Obama here."

With 28 percent of Lake County precincts reporting, Obama leads Clinton 75-25. Clinton will probably close that gap as the whiter, rural returns come in, but there's a chance that Obama could erase her 40,000-vote lead statewide, depending on turnout.

Not a good sign: according to the Politico's Ben Smith, "Tim Russert... just said that Hillary Clinton canceled her scheduled appearances on the morning shows tomorrow. It's a sign of weakness she can ill afford at a moment when questions about whether she can continue are mounting."

Still developing... 
 

RALEIGH, N.C.--It's no secret that among certain segments of the electorate--especially the Republican attack dogs he could face in the fall--Barack Obama has a bit of perceptual patriotism problem. You know the drill: the flag pin, Bittergate, saluting the stars and stripes, Michelle's pride in America. That's why I thought this passage from tonight's speech was intriguing:

I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it's the only reason I'm standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it. It is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean. It is the founding ideals that the flag draped over my grandfather's coffin stands for - it is life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's the simple truth I learned all those years ago when I worked in the shadows of a shuttered steel mill on the South Side of Chicago--that in this country, justice can be won against the greatest of odds; hope can find its way back to the darkest of corners; and when we are told that we cannot bring about the change that we seek, we answer with one voice--yes we can.

In other words, my name may be Muslim, my father may have been African and I may have lived in Indonesia and Hawaii as a kid. But I'm still one of you--with relatives who made the same sacrifices for America as your ancestors.

If you're wondering whether this message was intentional, consider the campaign-arranged TV backdrop: a half-dozen middle-aged white women--Hillary Clinton's core constituency--holding little American flags:

RALEIGH, N.C.--Barack Obama's favorite subject? Mathematics.

As soon as it became obvious here at the Obama celebration in Raleigh that today's primaries had ended in a split decision--a crushing 15-point win for Obama in N.C., a narrower, perhaps four-point victory for Clinton in Indiana--Obama communications director Robert Gibbs and chief strategist David Axelrod gathered a small group of reporters on a terrace overlooking the parking lot and did what they did best: spin.  "We think we won a really big victory here tonight," said Axelrod. "It ensures that regardless of what happens in Indiana that we are going to extend our delegate lead... The important thing is that this was not a game changer, folks, in any way, shape or form."

It was a funny formulation--"a really big victory" that was, nonetheless, "not a game changer." But Axelrod's description was accurate. After month of news cycles dominated by a string of popular-vote losses (Ohio, Pennsylvania and the Texas primary) and a series of scandel-ettes (Rev. Wright, Bittergate)--a period that even Axelrod admitted "wasn't helpful"--Team Obama was happy to get a win on the board. As they see it, each contest that doesn't slash Obama's insurmountable lead in the pledged-delegate count or his near-insurmountable edge in the popular vote--or expands his leads, as tonight's results probably will--puts them, in Gibbs's words, one step "closer to the finish line." For Obama, he implied, the less the game changes, the better.

His reason? The math. Asked whether he thought the race was over, Axelrod avoided answering--but made it clear that he's not exactly perched on the edge of his seat. "The math is the math," he said.  Here, Gibbs chimed in. "The fact is, there are fewer delegates left to win in the primaries than superdelegates still up for grabs," he said. "From this point on, Sen. Clinton would have to win 70 percent of all the remaining delegates, both superdelegates and pledged delegates, to reach a majority. And as far as superdelegates go, just looked at what we've rolled out since Feb. 5. That's a tall order."

"Despite the tortured constructions from the other side," added Axelrod, with a grin.

The numbers game even extends to the arguments over Obama's electability. While the Clinton camp would argue that her strength among white, working-class voters makes her a surer bet to beat John McCain come November, Obama's aides disagree. Their counterargument: Obama can change the map. Citing North Carolina exit polls that showed a massive surge in new voter turnout (18 percent)--and a big Obama victory in the subgroup--Gibbs, a native Tar Heel, even speculated that his candidate could swing North Carolina into the Democratic column on Election Day. "Since 1992, there have been Democratic governors elected, Democratic congressmen," he said. "With a concerted effort that expands the electorate in the fall, we could make a run at it. Look at what we did tonight with indepedents, with new voters, with young people. That's what we need and want to win the general election." As Obama loses the Average Joe vote yet again--despite Axelrod's claims tonight that he "won among white voters under 60," the Illinois senator actually lost in every white subgroup over 30--Gibbs is hoping the wary superdelegates are paying attention. Regardless, added Axelrod, "the Democrats will be united in the fall."

Still, despite that show of comity, Obama's guru couldn't help but throw a final elbow. Noting that Republicans (who accounted for 11 percent of the vote in Indiana) chose Clinton over Obama 53 to 45, Axelrod credited none other than Rush Limbaugh. "Apparently, Rush has been urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary," he said. "It looks like tonight she was the beneficiary." His point was clear: it was mischievous Republicans, not earnest Democrats, who had powered Clinton to her Hoosier State win. Whether or not that equation holds up--and early evidence suggests it may, with an estimated seven percent of those who voted for Clinton in Indiana not planning to support her in the fall--Axelrod and Co. probably have more than enough math on their side without it.

As we reentered Reynold Coliseum after the briefing, a classic Jackson 5 track blared over the PA. "A-B-C," went the lyrics. "It's easy as 1-2-3." We'll see soon enough whether the superdelegates agree. 

RALEIGH, N.C.--Judging by the scene here in Reynolds Coliseum on the campus of North Carolina State, the Obama campaign didn't think it'd be that easy.

The networks called the Tar Heel State for the senator from Illinois at 7:33 p.m. local time--a mere three minutes after polls closed. No actual returns necessary--just exit polls showing that about 91 percent of the state's African American voters had backed Obama, who also benefited from a surge of first-time voters. (They represented 18 percent of the day's turnout and favored him by a vast 68-26 percent.) The only problem? There were no actual supporters in Reynolds when Tom Brokaw broke the news. While the press corps tapped at their laptops like zombies, a pair of Obama volunteers clapped and cheered (o-BAM-a, o-BAM-a) in the corner. Their cries barely carried from one end of the court to the other. "We were out canvassing all day long, knocking on doors," said Diana Powell, 44, a Raleigh minister decked out in a white Obama t-shirt and a red Obama cap. "Even the people who WEREN'T registered said they were for Barack." So you weren't worried about North Carolina? "No way," she said. Just then, the first wave of Obamaniacs, who'd been waiting outside for hours, started to trickle in. "Woo!" they shouted. "Woo!" Powell replied. Officially, doors wouldn't open for another 20 minutes. But it seemed the party was starting a little early.

A possible damper: Indiana. With 34 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton now leads Obama 54 to 37 percent--and the early, easy win in North Carolina means that most of the media huffing and puffing would focus on the Hoosier State instead. Exit polls from Indiana show Clinton winning that crucial constituency--white blue-collar voters--65 to 34. Earlier in the day, Obama visited the Four Seasons Family Restaurant in Greenwood, Indiana to chat with patrons about the economy and gas prices before sitting down to breakfast. But the first man he approached waved him away. "I can't stand him,'' the diner told a reporter later. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned.'' Asked whether she was as confident about Indiana as North Carolina, Powell stopped smiling. "That's the nailbiter," she said. Nearby, a network correspondent encircled her head with a halo of hairspray. It was time for her close-up.