Hey Bill, so what? Do you have a point here? We could look at this by who has won the most geographic territory (hint: Obama is KICKING YOUR ASS!!!), but that doesn't really matter does it, because that isn't how elections are decided.

Is anyone else sick of how small the Clintons are acting in dismissing everyone that doesn't vote for them as worthless?? It is embarrassing to all democrats to have an ex-president and a current presidential candidate and Senator trashing on large sections of the country, millions upon millions of people. I've very much ashamed.

She's also winning in the delegate and popular vote counts from contests she's won.

Oh yeah. Well Obama is WAYYY ahead in states that Obama won. So take that!!

Clinton supporters have eaten more Peeps than Obama's supporters. This race is over!

The Clintons finally decided to put dolly wheels on the goalposts-saves them a lot of trouble moving those goalposts so often.

He must have been drinking those lattes!

Some people call this spin, some call it misspeaking, I call it lying.

There is such a thing as lying by the twist of truth. This is an example.

And I agree, it is very embarrasing to have an ex-President act this way.

When are them Texas results going to be published loudly for once and for all??

Clinton also has the most votes ever cast for a female candidate for the Democratic Nomination from the State of New York who is married to a former president. Top that Obama.

I'm getting dizzy from all the spin coming from the Clinton camp.

Well, I live in a primary state- yay, good, good, good. According to Bill, I count! What a relief. Unfortunately, Bill also says mine is not a significant primary state since it's only Virginia and not NY or California. Dang.

We've been getting the "caucuses are undemocratic" drumbeat for months now.

But what I want to know is this: was anyone making any serious arguments against caucuses BEFORE 2008?

If caucuses are such a horrible blight on our democracy, then surely there was some kind of organized resistance to the idea before it became politically expedient for Clinton. In my little bit of research, all I've found are some complaints specific to Iowa, but nothing about the caucus concept in general.

Can TPM shed any light on the history here?

This really is entering the opera bouffe stage, the final tragic-comic scenes in the drama of the Clinton loss of power. (Bill seems the more upset, and it is easy to see why: he worries that no one will be there to simply praise his 1990s legacies.)

I'll bet we New England Patriots fans could rework ways of counting points in the last NFL football season plus the postseason and the Super Bowl to make the Patriots come out perfect, without that final defeat. Let's see if we can sell that to the rest of country!

Seriously, there is a longstanding tension in American democracy at work here: since early in U.S. history, there has been a tension between counting things by state population and/or levels of economic wealth, versus the genius of U.S. federalism deliberately created by the Founding Fathers to give equal weight in some dimensions to each state (e.g., representation the U.S. Senate). That governance plan was intended to spread points of access to the political system even to smaller and less populated and less wealthy places across the continent. It worked to facilitate broad economic development, and federal approaches were also built into mass political party practices (down through our present primary system). Thus our electoral system has important elements that widely spread access -- so that winning a lot of different states, not just the big ones, matters.
Why would we want a system in which the candidates visited only the big states?

Obama devised his campaign strategy to build on the existing rules of the federal-democratic game, and he should be praised for that. After the fact, the Clintons are reviving the age-old complaints of wealthy/populous states against the key underpinnings of U.S. federal democracy (though they are only doing it in retrospect because the original rules of the game they thought they could use to win have not worked for them). The response to their ploy is obvious: so what, if early in the primary season, Clinton piled up a lot of extra popular votes in California, Massachusetts, and New York? Those states will go for Obama/Democrats in the general election anyway. The excess votes are wasted in an electoral college system. (And notice that, in any event, the latest polls show Obama doing better than Clinton against McCain in California. If we "redid" some of those early primary contests, Obama would do better now.)

Let's hope the superdelegates drift steadily to a winner and we Democrats can pivot toward the general election after the PA-NC-IN contests.
If that means the end of comic daily efforts to redefine the rule of U.S. governance/politics in retrospect, that will be a blessed side effect.

Theda Skocpol, Cambridge, MA

Well, heck, even the Cubs win some of their innings. But there are rules that say they have to score more runs in the whole game before they get to count it as a win.

What's wrong with these people, anyway?

But what I want to know is this: was anyone making any serious arguments against caucuses BEFORE 2008?

Was anyone making serious arguments against the autonomy of the superdelegates BEFORE 2008. No. good- so Obama can take his plegeded delegate lead and take a flying leap.

Oh for heaven's sake, Bill, this is ridiculous!

Just to make sure I've got this right; was he saying this to the folks who are going to the convention this weekend to validate the delegates from the Texas caucuses? That is who I think he was talking to and if that's the case it's even crazier than it would be otherwise.

I now think that those who think all this ever-more ridiculous Pennspin is directed at the super delegates (and, to be fair,I was one of those people until recently) are wrong. The supers are increasingly making it clear that they think its stupid and insulting to their intelligence.

No, the only people who seem to be buying it are her supporters, which leads me to hypothesize that they are, in fact, the intended audience. (And note that that's literally true in this case. Bill wasn't talking to a rally of superdelegates here.)

I now believe this stuff is solely for the benefit of the voters and the troops, particularly in Pennsylvania. I'd be willing to bet that their internals are starting to show that the harsh mathematical realities are starting to take hold of the voters' minds and some are, quite rationally, beginning to ask what the point of voting for Hillary is if she can't win the nomination by any means that would enable her to win the general. Their only hope to counteract that trend is to keep pumping out a steady stream of liquid bullshit and hope some of it lands on the other side of the scale in the voters' brains that are weighing whether there's any point to voting for her.

Additionally, of course, she's especially got to keep the hardcore diehards morale up or her campaign is over. As we here in the comment dungeon know all too well, there is no statement Team Hillary can make that's too ridiculous to be believed and repeated by her core supporters for at least a while, but as the actual facts keeps getting worse for them, the shelf life of each new ridculous statement is less than that of the last one so they have to generate new ones at a faster rate.

In slightly archaic economic terms, she's out of specie (facts) and she's exhausted her credit. Her campaign's only remaining currency is ridiculous Pennspin. As more and more people lose confidence in the value of that currency, it begins an inflationary spiral and they have to put out more and more of it. They start with one one ridiculous idea a month, then its one a week, then its two or three a week. Before this is over, they'll be putting out new ridiculous ideas every hour on the hour, 24/7.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nippys/2312733293/
When Peeps Go Bad.....

No president gets to pick and chose the callenges they face. Every human being faces challenges we must overcome. If Hillaryland wasn't doing well in caucuses, it was their challenge to figure out a way to do better.

Since they don't bother taking this challenge head on and find a solution to improve their caucus performance, I gather they would be unfit to govern in the real world of being president.

At last, Thanks to President Bill Clinton having now explained it, I fully understand why Senator Hillary Rambo Clinton decided to not contest the Iowa Caucuses, and never even visited Iowa.

"Caucuses! We don't need no stinkin' Caucuses" Hillary Rambo Clinton

If I were Obama, I would urge Clinton to quit the race right now. I would be saying that she is harming the party and our chances in November. I would blame all the divisiveness of this campaign on Clinton. I would call her the divider, and I would call myself the uniter. I would be pointing out that even though I can not win the nomination by pledged delegates any more than Clinton can, the superdelegates should all support me because of my slim lead in pledged delegates. I would urge them to ignore the rule that says they should use their judgment, and say that to not support the candidate with the most pledged delegates would make the nomination illegitimate. I would block every attempt to include the votes from Michigan and Florida, or to have a re-vote, and instead try to negotiate some formula where either I get half of those votes regardless of how the people voted, or only use the original vote if the numbers are cut in half, thus minimizing Clinton's advantage in those two states. I would try my best to get Clinton to resign before Pennsylvania where she is expected to win.

If I were Hillary Clinton I would absolutely not resign the race with Pennsylvania, Illinois and Puerto Rico still ahead. I would do everything I could to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated in some fashion that does not transfer votes I won to Mr. Obama, or cut my lead in half. I would hope for increased media scrutiny of Mr. Obama, and more revelations such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory comments. I would want the public to get to know Mr. Obama as well as they already know me. I would want his record examined. I would press the superdelegates to follow the rules and use their best judgment, rather than simply rubber stamp the pledged delegate results. I would point to polls that indicate a close race. I would point out how slim Mr. Obama's lead is among pledged delegates. I would continuously remind my critics that the race is not over, and that important states have yet to vote. If blamed for the divisiveness of the campaign, I would point out that my opponent has engaged in attacks as well, and it takes two. And to those who say the campaign has dragged on too long and increases the chance that McCain will win, I would say that just sixteen years ago my husband's nomination wasn't settled until June, and he won the presidency.

Hillary is also leading the popular vote AND delegates in states that she has won. Take that, Obama.

Why is the media not talking about this?? THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!

Bill's point is legitimate-- caucuses favor people with lots of time on their hands, who tend to be wealthier. Primaries are a simpler way of doing business, and, at least arguably, a better measure of the public pulse.

I'll be voting for HRC in Pennsylvania because her health care plan is better than Obama's. Read today's Krugman.

Don't like it? If BHO could have won sufficient delegates outright, this would all be over. I'm not casting a vote to ratify the results of the mighty Kansas caucuses. I want my voice heard.