I think that's a fair characterization of the way in which the party is splitting. And Hillary is deepening the divisions with her negative attacks and sleazy race baiting comments about Farrakhan, etc. She's undoing much of what Bill pulled together in 1996. I think she'd be unelectable come the fall because great numbers of voters who are not in her camp would feel disenfranchised and would stay home rather than going to vote for the person who scorched them and told them they didn't matter. Even if she did win, her arrogant "my way or the highway" approach would surely rub most Americans the wrong way and lead to another midterm backlash and cost Democrats control of Congress. Good luck getting those pretty policies through then. Will Rogers was right: we Democrats don't belong to an organized party.

Sent by Sweetie | 10:34 AM ET | 04-23-2008

Please, could you verify the results and inform the other media houses of the PA Department of State official results as they now stand? According to the PA DOS: Clinton received 54.30% to Obama 45.70% of the popular vote. The margin of victory is 8.6% NOT 10% as is being reported throughout the media.

Sent by Christopher | 10:37 AM ET | 04-23-2008

The medias' ceaseless speculations and poll analysis may be "teaching" us how we are going to respond, lets lighten up a bit and see if the human mind and heart has the capacity for growth and change, or if we truly are fated to walk and endless "trail of tears".

Sent by Bill Hogan | 10:56 AM ET | 04-23-2008

It's:
Democrat v. Marxist
Coffee v. Latte
Steak v. Vegan
Flannel v. Metrosexual
Doing v. Talking
Beer v. Wine
Job v. Academia

Pretty clear stuff.

Sent by deek | 10:56 AM ET | 04-23-2008

actually pa dos now has the tally at 9.2%. but yes that is the correct tally not 10.

Sent by jen | 11:05 AM ET | 04-23-2008

Some of Hillary Clinton's staunchest supporters are white liberal women over the age of 60. These are the women who were on the frontlines of the battle for women's reproductive rights. It is particularly ironic that many of these same women say they'll vote for McCain if Obama wins. But if McCain wins, he has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges who are likely to be the deciding votes which will overturn Roe v. Wade. So by blindly supporting Clinton and railing against Obama, the end result is likely to be the ultimate reversal of everything they fought for on the abortion issue.

Sent by A Texan | 11:24 AM ET | 04-23-2008

It is striking that Obama consistently gets about 90% of the African American vote...looking at this it seems to me that this suggests strongly "ethnic pride" to the point possibly of racism(when connection to skin color, prevents a person to view the candidates fully)...to be honest, I feel bad for Clintons...if you look at her history, she has championed the causes of the disadvantaged for years and during her husband's Presidency, Bill Clinton gave opportunity to many American minorities...I know it must "sting" some to think how quickly people turn away from you for obviously shallow reasons (my opinion)...I know my statements here will not be accepted well, however, I don't think that 90% of any ethnicity could vote for a candidate of the same color and it not be viewed curiously(don't give me the rhetoric that there's never been a black presidential candidate before...he's historical yes, however, should that guarantee him the vote)...lastly, regarding Bill Clinton's statements in South Carolina...it's so amusing to see how quickly issues are spun as racist when uttered from the mouth of a "white" person...I didn't understand all the scrutiny about Bill Clinton's statements(reportedly, Jesse Jackson wasn't offended)...after all, Jesse Jackson won due to the overwhelming black vote as did Obama...statement of fact...not racist statement...we need to stop cheapening our minds with racially divisive drama and convenient politics...I still strive to believe that we are Americans first, individuals second...I hope there are others that want to see the Nation get to that place...we need to stop crippling the growth of this Nation by refusing to do individual scrutiny and make the necessary improvements, when and if necessary...

Sent by ard | 11:25 AM ET | 04-23-2008

Why do you write so disparagingly of the voters who are poor, older, Catholic, blue collar, Hispanic, religious??? The make up a very large percentage of the group that fought our WWII and other wars to make this country safe for the young crowd that cannot wait to bury us and are so ignorant of all that was done for them during the Depression and WWII so that they could go to college and become the little snotty brats that they are??? You have a responsibility to present this. Have any of you ever visited the American Cemetery at Normandy or other places around the world where the ones who went to save life for the little snotty brats are lying in their graves???? GET REAL!!!!

Sent by mimi sponzo | 11:30 AM ET | 04-23-2008

Maybe some would feel better if we pushed the percentage of votes out to 5 or more decimal places. 54.299999, there that's better.

Sent by deek | 11:32 AM ET | 04-23-2008

I'm not a political scientist, but hasn't it long been obvious that the Democratic Party is (and historically, has been) a party of disparate coalitions? It used to be a coalition of the segregationist South with the urban North. The Depression gave Democrats the opportunity to create dependency groups through social programs, but time and technology have started to bypass those tactics. Now the Democratic faithful are a coalition of identity-politics groups. Clinton and Obama have few differences in terms of policy; their dispute is entirely about the role of identity. If anyone thinks that this year's contest between candidates and groups which have a moral claim on the presidency based on the past victimization or exclusion of their identity group, is an aberration, ask yourself - what's going to happen in 2012 or 2016 when the rising Hispanic constituency decides one of 'its own' can speak for it better than can a black man or a white woman, let alone a white man?

This year's bloodletting should have been foreseen by smarter journalists and political scientists than we apparently have in this country, but they were too busy predicting that it would be the Republicans who would be engaged in internecine warfare between their constituency groups, and were drinking 'rock star' Kool-Aid of the Obama campaign without noting fairly obvious problems on the horizon for Obama given the environment from whence he came.

The interpretation of the Democratic primaries might be that (a) it is true that huge numbers of voters simply don't like Hillary Clinton, who was once seen as 'inevitable', (b) Obama's failure to seal the deal shows his probable weakness among genuine swing voters in a general election, and (c)as is usually the case, the Republicans are being underestimated by the pundits and by the Democrats who read them.

Sent by Mark Richard | 12:14 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Deek, I respectfully disagree with you for two reasons.

First, winning by "double-digits" had been an often repeated meme in the media. If she didn't get it, it becomes a selling point for Obama. You know that small things can make a big difference in a race like this one.

Second, I'm Canadian by birth, although I became an American citizen in 2000. In 1995, the separatists in Quebec lost a referendum on basically leaving Canada by 1.1 percent. I remember that night that every percentage point change was huge, for both sides. Ever since that night, I've been very aware of the importance of percents.

Cheers

Tom

Sent by Tom Regan | 12:16 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Race baiting on the part of Hillary Clinton? Give me a break. Two months before "Reverend" Wright's comments were aired by ABC he gave a sermon about the "4-H" club. The 4-H club, as defined by the bigoted, Wright consists in "Hannity, Hillary, Hobbes, and hatred."

Wright has his daughter present an award to Louis Farakhan, a man who denies the Holocaust and leads his audiences in chants of "Jew," "Jew," Jew" in response to questions invoking conspiracy theories.

Wright claims that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government for purposes of racial genocide.

Obama describes this man as his "spiritual mentor," "sounding board," gave tens of thousands of dollars to his church, had Wright marry him and baptize his daughters, and expose them to this fraud and charlatan as a part of their moral education.

These are legitimate points and I have heard relatively little from Hillary Clinton who was personally attacked, by name, in several sermons by this despicable man.

Race baiting? Are you really serious? Who is doing the baiting? I would suggest Reverend Wright and unfortunately quite a few other men with the word "Reverend" in front of their name.

This association belies the claims that Obama is a uniter who transcends race. To the contrary, he is his racial identity which he chose and chose through this church and its ideology.

Sent by David | 12:30 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Mimi,

I'm not sure who it is that you believe writes "disparagingly of the voters who are poor, older, Catholic, blue collar, Hispanic, religious," but it seems hypocritical of you to complain when you yourself are insulting young educated people by calling them "little snotty brats." You were young once. Don't forget that. And don't insult an entire generation of Americans that you know nothing about.

Sent by MTG | 1:49 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Can someone explain to me why winning North Carolina isn't as important to Clinton as winning Pennsylvania was supposed to be for Obama.

And since when did black people suddenly stop being seen as regular members of the democratic party whose opinions are as worthy of respect as anyone else's?

And getting mad at Obama because Wright's daughter was nice to Farrakahn? The Governor of Pennsylvania had nice things to say about Farrakan. Where does guilt by association end?

Sent by glenn | 2:27 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Mark, holey moley that's good. Nice job. Yes their downfall will be the perpetuation of the cartoon they have in their heads about what conservatives are.

Tom, I just don't see it that way. Yes percentage points and even single votes can have a huge difference but I think moreso when it's applied to tangible concrete outcomes like what you mentioned; the Quebec secession. That was a concrete tangible outcome.

This primary result is a nebulous, subjective thing. It only results in one side or another feeling something; did we win or lose, by how much, what does it mean, should I continue, etc?

The difference between 9.2 and 10 is only relevant in the campaign followers' and other political geeks minds. The average itizen is gonna hear that Clinton won by 10% or almost 10%.

Either way I don't think 9.0% or 9.1999% or 10% is goiing to have any tangible results because Hillary will continue on.

I reserve the right to be completly wrong however.

Sent by deek | 3:23 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Younger voters don't have the experience to know that Obama is not experienced enough to be President. Older voters do and that's a bigger issue than race. Myself, as a conservative Republican: Please Democrats, nominate Obama. Then McCain could pick me as his running mate and still win the presidency.

Sent by jb | 3:28 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I am outraged and disappointed by Hillary Clinton and her husband -- a man I once admired greatly. While it is clear that Obama has the majority of the popular vote and the majority of wins by state, Clinton refuses to bow out of this race. Her decision to win at all costs will ultimately undermine the Democratic Party and the hopes of many Americans for a better future. If she wins the nomination, I will not vote for her. She does not represent my vision of America. I would rather suffer a continuation of the Bush-Cheney legacy with a McCain presidency than to see the vision of the Democratic Party be soiled by such a power-hungry woman.

Sent by Vatsala Pathy | 4:04 PM ET | 04-23-2008

To MTG -- who is writing disparagingly? Well I guess you did not read the article we are responding to. Try reading that first and perhaps you will pick up the disparaging tone? I happen to LOVE the younger generation -- spent last Saturday on a bus to Yonkers taking fifty of them to a rock concert. But when we are characterized so disparagingly as "people who simply cannot change their minds" that is where the insult plays. So cool it and read more finely between the lines.

Sent by Mimi | 4:06 PM ET | 04-23-2008

The truth is - America is a very racist
country. Why is it that white people cannot understand that Reverend Wright is angry because of all the racism and injustices he faced as a black man in America? White people think they are superior to black people. They marginalize black people. A black man cannot express his angry without white backlash. I'm sorry I forgot my place massa!

Sent by Sherry | 9:34 PM ET | 04-23-2008