The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate.

Pledged delegate count: She loses this argument.

Popular vote: She loses this argument as well.

Specific states: She loses this argument as well (unless she believes that he won't win California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.).

This pretty much underscores just how weak her case is going forward. Even if you buy her "states won" argument, the other two data points don't favor her at all.

"Hillary spoke soon after noon to her top money people. "She took questions for most of the time," the fundraiser says, adding that she projected an "upbeat" air and that she said, "I'm a fighter, when I get knocked down, I get right up, we're gonna win this.'"

I think she's right. . .unless there are no revotes in Michigan and Florida. That will be the battle, with the Obama campaign doing its best to prevent a revote in both states, and the Clinton campaign doing the converse. I think Hillary will win this battle because nobody in their right mind is going to want to alienate the voters of Florida and Michigan. On this issue, Hillary Clinton can rightfully claim the high moral ground.

The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate.

Well, considering that Clinton is behind in the pledged delegate count, AND the popular vote, the only positive at this point is the states won by each candidate. And consider this: some of them are going to be blue no matter who the Democratic candidate is. Also, Clinton would finish behind both McCain and Obama in some of the states that Obama won, so, the Clinton campaign is reduced to talking about Ohio at this point. Wow. That would convince me to go fund raise.

Please. Someone make this stop.

If Hillary's campaign was simply about electability, based on greater blue collar support in Ohio, I'd disagree with her overall conclusion, but I wouldn't object to her being in the race. However, her only realistic goal is to make Obama toxic to superdelegates; debatable arguments about electability will not cause a massive swing of superdelegates in her direction.

And to make him toxic, you have to diminish him as much as possible. The argument that he's not qualified but McCain is is only part of that argument. That his success is only due to his race fits neatly with the "unqualified" argument. But the Rezko thing as well; given no evidence of wrong doing, that too is simply an attempt to make him unelectable in the fall and is no way an argument about who is the better candidate.

It doesn't sound like Hillary or her surrogates made that point to the fundraisers, probably because the fundraisers -- presumably Democrats -- would be appalled at such a strategy. But it's there. It's obvious. It's their only option.

I'm beginning to wonder if she's cracking up. I can't tell if she's displaying some kind of garden variety denial or outright delusion. Next thing you know she'll climb a tree and refuse to come down.

Well, duh. Of course she said that. What is she going to say, "We're going to lose this"? Even if that is the reality of the thing.

I think it's fair to say at this point that, unless Obama has an Elliott Spitzer-style meltdown, Hillary is pretty much finished for this year.

I personally think she's a better candidate than is reflected by her advisers (though she did hire them...).

This just wasn't her year. I just hope she doesn't damage the Party too much before she sucks it up and does the right thing. Unless she scorches too much earth, she'll be formidable in 2016.

Okay--Greg has proved his worth here. Who else but someone with a sympathy for Clinton could have scored this scoop from a Hillary fundraiser!

Good work, Greg!

Even if one overlooks the lack of basic decency and judgment, it amazes that she should aspire to be POTUS and CIC without even the least understanding of elementary arithmetic.

It is unlikely that her paid advisers will ever explain the mathematical impossibilities to her. Like Trippi, they'll bill the campaign for their fat fees so they can chill after her defeat in a beach in Florida, or in their case, Puerto Rico.

It's certainly not news that Hillary is telling her fundraisers that she can still win.

The most interesting bit is missing -- how they reacted. I wonder if Greg's contact could convey any sense of this.

Even if you accept that her plan for a superdelegate-driven victory is plausible, these people must be wondering how such a divided party can ever win the general election.

Translation: We're arrogant and irrational enough to stay in this race even though we have virtually no chance of winning the nomination without fracturing the party and costing the Democrats the White House. If we can't win, we'll take Obama down with us!

Whatever. Everybody duck after she gets her cash because you haven't seen ugly yet.

I dearly hope she does lose this . . . and loses big, *and* loses ugly. All justice cries for it.

But I fear that the Clinton campaign's determination to bully the party establishment into handing her the nomination may, in the end, be the deciding factor. The only question the party faces is how, once it happens, they cover themselves for the painful two-or-three news cycles of outrage before the MSM goes to some new and distracting story and all the gutter depravity that has come before begins to . . . fade . . . from the minds of the public and everything goes back to bidness as usual.

They've got a few months to work out some mechanism along those lines (remember, allowing her to steal the nomination is the 'responsible' course under this system). That's more than enough time.

Hillary's new campaign manager is Ashley Alexandra Dupre, better known as "Kristen". Dupre's strategy calls for defining Obama as ready on Day One to be Client #10.

Screw progressivism, the Democratic Party and winning the White House! Pick me, superdelegates! I've EARNED it!
The Clintons truly are a cancer on the Democratic Party. I never thought I'd say it, but after the last few days, I can't reach any other conclusion.
Go Walnuts!(?)

No, Hillary's strategy is shrewd. The first two "data points" seem to favor Obama, but she will frame the pledged-delegate count and the popular vote as virutal "ties" because they are so close. (And, you have to admit, those two data points will be very close -- 51/49 close, if not closer.)

Therefore (Hillary will argue), because the first two data points are too close to be determinative, the "states won" data point should be determinative. That will be the crux of her argument: I can win in the states that have to be won.

I'm not saying she's right, but this is clearly what she's doing.

All this talk of the importance of the "popular vote" bugs me to no end. When a nomination process consists of such different selection methods as regular primaries and caucuses, there is no meaningful way to add up total votes -- it's the old apples and oranges problem.

The states select delegates for this very reason, so that whatever system each state uses, their voting results are given the proper weight in proportion to their relative number of Democratic voters.

The delegate totals are actually the "popular" vote, or at least as close as we're ever going to get.

DOES NO ONE KNOW BASIC ARITHMETIC ANYMORE??!!!!

If the whole thing is ABOUT "convincing" the Super Delegates that blah blah blah, then these people, the Clinton folks are fucking CRAZY! And very STUPID!

"I'm a fighter, when I get knocked down, I get right up, we're gonna win this."

Someone from the Clinton campaign should contact Chumbawumba and see if they'll remix a new theme song for her.

If Hillary thinks this could work to persuade them...does she have any evidence that it could? I mean, is she getting signals as such? Does this worry anyone?

I know another politician that was so hungry for power that he lost sight of the facts. He's leaving the White House soon. It'd be nice if the next resident wasn't a freaking clueless lunatic.

Here's something we've not seen before. The Obama campaign responds to a Clinton memo by simply annotating it:

To: Interested Parties From: Clinton Campaign Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far – every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define “setback” as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE’VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN’T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we’re still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only “important” states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don’t think Clinton’s strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans – all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

[“A candidacy past its prime.” These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups.

[That’s true, if you don’t count all the winning we’ve been up to. As it turns out, it’s difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I’m sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I’m sure Rush Limbaugh’s full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn’t make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we’re ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders – those making up their minds in the last days before the election – have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us – I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

Apparently the Obama campaign is in it's last throws.

Yeah, I think that if she can't convince them to nominate her, according to whatever plan she up her sleeve, she'll definitely opt for third party. She'll probably even hold this over their heads.

So basically if she can't win the right way, she'll hold the Democratic party hostage until they do.

Ok, ok I have a confession to make. I can't stand the thought of listening to her shrill, crackling voice and cackle until november. (We won't have to worry past november because she will never in a million years win the general election.) I can't stand it. It's driving me nuts. I basically just turn off the radio or fast forward the tv when they do a bit on a speech she gives. It's really pathetic. People do you actually think that you want to listen to that for four years? Are you nuts?

Hillary with pinky finger extended to corner of her mouth: "We are going to win this"....Laughs maniacally: "MUUUWAH HA HA HA HA HA!!!"

What is she going to do, travel back in time to that madrassa in Indonesia and steal Barack's mojo?

It's way to early to say this, because I think it is nearly inevitable that Obama wins the nomination, but, if Hillary wins with the support of the Supers we should be looking at the consequences.

It seems pretty certain that if Sen Clinton wins without the support of pledged delegates that there will be a huge split in the party. The only good thing that could come from this is the formation of a third party. I've heard the idea floated that Hillary might go third party if she loses, but I have a hard time seeing that. If she loses pledged, contests won and supers she has no support in going third party.

If Obama wins pledged and popular, but loses the supers, he has a huge incentive to start a 3rd party. He would be pressed to win the General, but it could begin a major transformation in American politics.

Again it's all a bit of reach...but interesting.

She was also quoted saying, "No I am not scared and neither should you be! Yesterday, we slaughtered them and we will continue to slaughter them."

The money barons dumb enough to throw more good money after bad should know that the Democrats need Obama more than he needs them. If he is denied the nomination despite his delegate lead, his contingent can afford to walk off the Convention floor - the millions of young people flocking to his campaign have no stake in the Democdratic party, and will be happy to go back to their computer games, and African Americans, rightly, are tired of being used again and again. The Democratic Party will remain fragmented for the next generation. On the other hand, if Hillary is passed up, her supporters, seasoned politicians, will just cut the best deal for themselves and go about their business as usual. And the Democrats will be the New Majority for the next generation.

So, Hillary supporters, take your pick!

Hillary's negatives are going through the roof right now. Chuck Todd hinted at that conclusion from a poll to be released tonight (if not already).

Any scenario that has Hillary winning the nomination leaves her fatally wounded for the general election. The super delegates can see this which is why they wont vote for her.

I'll go out on a limb and say that this latest dust up will hasten her demise. Sure her poll numbers might get better in PA, but the Democratic party can not go through six more weeks of this nonsense.

Hillary can't seem to stick to the facts and constantly feels the need to enlist the aid of the kitchen sink. For that she deserves to forfeit the nomination.

Here is an interesting exercise. Take the current pledged and committed superdelegates. Add in the 'Add on Delegates' that will be awarded (there are accurate predictions floating around). Then add in the delegates that the Obama spreadsheet predicts he'll get.

After you do all that, look at the number of Uncomitted superdelegates left. There are around 268. Figure out how many more delegates each candidate needs to get to 2024.

The answer to all this is Clinton will need to get approximately 235 of the remaining 268 superdelegates, or 90% of *all* the remaining superdelegates for her to get nominated on the first ballot. Does *anyone* really think that is going to happen? Even if she has a blowout in Penn, it still isn't going to close this gap much.

I assume math wasn't part of her presentation today. The superdelegates aren't there - there aren't enough left uncommitted

Publicus Hussein,

Thanks for digging that up. That response is absolutely wonderful and is perfect for Obama. The sense of humor allows him to maintain the high road while at the same time totally destroying their argument.

This needs to become the standard Obama response technique.

...in 2012.

YES WE WILL !

For those who want substantial basis for their fear, here is a relevant diary by a pundit who knows his electoral math:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/12/12839/7964/922/475044

From the desk of:

Geraldine Ferraro

I have decided to resign from the position that I have never held with the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.

I am deeply disappointed that Senator Obama has chosen to attack me in such a racist manner. However, should he become the nominee of our party, I am still willing to engage in fund raising for him, provided that he changes his ways, and promises to stop being a Black Man.

Keith Olberman just bitch slap Hillary on his show about Ms Ferrero comments and Hillary's lack of rejecting her comments. A 10 minute rant...

I wont be surprised if he gets suspended over this because you know the HRC camp is gonna make a big stink about this...

Pat Buchanan just told a black pundit on Dan Abrams show to "shut up." It was a hot exchange over Obama...

Her only hope of winning is complete destruction of Obama and the party. If she goes that route, I think she'll see a lot of Democrats staying home in November (or becoming independents even before then).

She has a completely flawed vision of the nomination --I really don't see how she could win it and maintain any support from Obama supporters, esp. given the way that she has run the campaign. Whenever things have gotten tight, she goes with fear and attacks. I for one have no interest in this and I know so many others lifelong Democrats who could never support her given the way she has tried to tear apart Obama. The only reasonable thing for her to do is to step down now and allow the Democratic party to move on. Hillary and Bill are such a reminder of bad, old politics that they will not be successful in 2008. As the younger crowd would say, they are so 1990s...

ferraro is right. i mean really - obama is the poor man's john edwards. a carbon copy.

hmm...read some more of these comments...and...

i have never, in all my life, seen a nastier group of supporters than obama's supporters. you people are worse than bush's cronies. i hope to god hillary wins the nominations so we can see all of you cry and go home, whining about going third party now or not voting in the election at all...

I'm going to start watching e-Bay very carefully.

I live in NY and I'm sure that someday my neighbors and I will be needing those snow shovels that Hillary gave out, for free, to Iowans.

So interestingly, speaking of fundraising. I just got a mailing from Mitch McConnell with the "New Republican Agenda Survey." (I can't even begin to guess why I'm on this list, but anyway).

And here's what it says:

"But let me be perfectly frank . . . if we fail to get our Grand Old Party back on track, if we fail to unite Senate Republicans behind a new conservative agenda . . . WE WILL HAND CONTROL OF THE U.S. SENATE AND THE HOUSE AND EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE TO HILLARY CLINTON, NANCY PELOSI, TED KEENDY AND THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS FOR A GENERATION OR MORE!"

Notice any name missing that they're NOT raising as the Great Satan?

Actually that whole with and without Florida and Michigan math has already been done- see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html.

You'll notice Clinton gathered 300,000 more votes in FL and 325,000 more in Michigan (that's against a zero total vote for Obama in Michigan- something a re-vote would assuredly change). Even, implausibly, holding those same margins in a re-vote scenario she still needs a net 100,000 gain from the remaining states.

possible, sure. but plausible?

..............HATE POLITICS................
i have to blame the DNC for all this hate ....the primary system they have is a horror story ... all these months of campaigning ...and strippimg the the fourth and eighth largest states of their delagates.... .caucus's where 2 percent of voters pick the winner.....open primaries where outsiders can pick the winner.......super delagates where the winner is picked for political reasons...proportional distribution of delagates ....this set up is geared for no one to win 2025 delagates ....HRC wins 3 states obama wins one state and she only gains 7 delagates....what kind of genius came up with this math .....the more candidates are on the road the more they have to attack to try to separate themselves ...the more their electorate gets hateful and start saying things that are outrageous...15 months and still going ...thay cant keep saying the same thing so they resort to throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.....DNC created this mess and deserve to be laughed at....maybe this should go to the convention and tear this dem party apart so it can be rebuilt with some sanity and common sense

Sometimes a visual is the best way to express a sentiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1a-hqvGNI

West Virginians are going two to one for Hillary!

Yeh and I will be King of England. And I will overtake Microsoft.

arghhh
don't blame the DNC for FLA and MICH they were warned again and again

and one fact is missing

the RNC punished FLA and MICH TOO!!!!!

Her constant spinning is absurd. Plouffe's message captured it perfectly:

When Obama won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When Obama won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When Obama won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When Obama won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When Obama won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that Obama has won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

~

"Clinton on the other hand has publicly stated that she expects her supporters to support Obama if he is the nominee."

Some facts for you based on Yesterday's Polls -

A higher percentage of Hillary's supporters said they will not support Obama, vote for him nor do they want him as her VP.

On the otherhand a higer percentage of the Obama voters said they will support her and feel he should offer her the VP spot.

Where are you grabbing your facts? She has never said she expects her supporters to support him at all.

I'm frustrated with Dean too. he should've told Hillary to F-off long ago about seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Rules are rules and Hillary agreed to play by them when she was still the inevitable one. Her hubris and overconfidence prevented her from seeing what's right. She never expected there to be any problem because she thought those states and their delegates wouldn't be needed, that Obama and Edwards would be buried under an avalanche of pledged delegates. Now, with her campaign once again on life support, Hillary is twisting and turning every which way trying to see an angle to play, to call in every marker she has out to try to steal this away from the man who has played by the rules every step of the way. I appeal to every undecided super delegate to watch how Hillary has conducted herself when she's been down. Rather than stick with a message that would not only elevate the discourse but her campaign she chose instead to start open warfare within the party. She has poisoned the waters to the extent that I have to question whether she is trying to sabotage Obama's general election chances so she can ride in on a white horse (no pun intended) in 2012 while shouting, "I TOLD YOU SO!" Three months ago I would have quickly denounced anyone who would have suggested that theory. Now I'm not so sure it isn't completely in the realm of possibilities. Hell, i think it's quite possible.

Yeah, it is.

This is getting kind of scary.

Earlier today I saw Hillary responding to another question about Geraldine Ferraro and her eyes went so wide it looked "unhinged" to me (pardon the over used descriptive).

And now, this pep talk makes me think of some pyramid marketer making the final, ultimate, last chance "investment" push just before the final collapse of the whole scheme.

This fast-talking desperation is not pretty. Is this the leadership we are looking for? I agree with some others, I once considered Hillary an equally valid candidate compared to Obama.

No more.

Hey I'm new on this blog but I really enjoyed reading your comments so I signed up. Here is my question:
In Mississippi, 25% of Clinton's votes were Limbaugh Republicans, according to MSNBC. Can she win this way? It cost Obama a lot of delegates in Mississippi. And why did nobody think it was strange that Bill Clinton went on the radio show the day that Texas/Ohio voted? t looked really fishy to me as if the Clintons had joined with Limbaugh in helping her to win. Which it did here in my state, Texas. And now Limbaugh is telling repulicans in Pennsylvania to change their party so they can vote for Hillary so I'm wondering how we are supposed to go forward with an election with the Republicans interfering with the outcome.

What concerns me here is that I believe Hillary will not just use pressure to get super delegates to vote for her but also 'pledged' delegates. As we are constantly reminded delegates can vote however they choose. I don't think most people would be persuaded to vote differently than the people they are representing expect them to. However, the way this campaign has gone, I will not put anything past the Clintons. I have gone beyond losing all respect for her and I don't think she can shock me anymore with how low she will go.
I have also been wondering about her mental health but there are people out there supporting her and I am assuming they have at least assured themselves that she is sane.
I wonder if she thinks she can buy the election??? Buy the delegates? I am confused also that so many superdelegates are supporting her under the circumstances. I really have to wonder about that at this point. I've lost respect for many people involved in her campaign and supporting her. I have lost respect for Senator Levin. This whole situation is a mess.
Today I watched an event with Senator Obama and a group of miliatary leaders. Senator Obama talked about why he believes he is ready to be commander and chief on day one. Several of the military leaders came to the podium and spoke about why they are supporting Barack Obama and why they feel he will be an great commander and chief. Then Senator Obama answered some questions from the media. His answers were brilliant and I was reminded of why I want him to be our next president. It was a great event to watch. I came home expecting to see it in the news and there was NOTHING!!!!! No 'judgement to lead' headlines...not a line. The only thing that I saw was a brief clip of him answering a question about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks. Here he is responding to Hillary's commander and chief 'thing' and it is nowhere to be found in the press/????? when I watched it, it was on Cnn live online... never to be heard of again??? Spitzer and Ferraro overtook the headlines but I still expected to at least see it at the bottom of the page somewhere...DID ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS EVENT?
OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

Kudos to annieratna for pointing out the difference between a leader and a fighter. HRC has no chance to win pledged delegates but is is "fighting" in a way that makes her a sore loser. She is destroying the Democratic village to save it. What an horrendous mess she is making, and we have to endure at least 6 more weeks of it. I never thought anyone would outdo Bush and Cheney in the ego and arrogance department, but Hillary is definitely in the ballpark.

Obama has shown himself to be a good candidate and an exceptional manager of a campaign. Obama leads, but is sometimes too cautious and passive. HRC manages her campaign in the great tradition of Bill, ie late night bull sessions and people wondering what is going to happen from day to day.

What is remarkable in this story is the tenacity of the feminist wing of the Democratic party. It is really something for everyone to look at, not to criticize so much as just to consider. Hillary's voters have been a mainstay of the Democratic party since Mondale at least, but are associated with a significant losing streak for the party. Hillary is stoking the rage and denial of her voters but seems to have entered the bargaining stage herself.

Those of us who support Obama -- I am a precinct captain for him -- should not let our irritation at Hillary's negativity blind ourselves to the reservations people feel about him. He is a newcomer to the scene and does not have much of a record. He has done a good job of suggesting that "experience" grounded in error is as likely as not to produce further error, but that doesn't close the sale. Bush has done a great job of promoting fear and Obama projects hope but does not always project confidence. That's what he and those of us who support him need to get across both finish lines --- the nomination and the general election.

I would like Obama to look back at Hillary's South Carolina gambit of criticizing him for his statements about Reagan's "transformational" election and presidency. In my view he needs to give one or more speeches analyzing the excesses of Reagan/Bush governance and the negatives of the 30 year Republican cycle as a whole, recognizing that Bill Clinton governed like a Republican and not as a Democrat. Hillary is very good at arguing programs and Obama has established "turn the page" as a great sales point, but programs sound like taxes to many people. I think I know that a Democratic cycle will bring decency, tolerance and the rule of law back to our culture and society, but I'm not totally sure I've heard Obama say that. Quite simply Obama is in a place where people who never gave him a chance are starting to take him seriously and are afraid. He needs to re-introduce himself and he and we need to get past the Hillary distractions.

Hey, let's all get in a big room and discuss how we can steal the election and make it look 51% legitimate.

Hillary might have to learn what getting back up does to a person, Apollo Creed style. I just don't see her going away, and that's scary.

New York Senator You-Know-Her has a "strategy" for attaining the Democratic Party's presidential nomination that boils down to baldly asserting: "Barack Obama didn't beat me BADLY ENOUGH in delegages, popular vote, and states won -- so therefore, I WIN!"

I like when she says both Michigan and Florida were fair elections, even though Hillary was the only one on the ticket in Michigan. Someone please explain to me how that is fair?

There is no possible way for HRC to win without the supers at this point. and her surrogates and some in the media are saying that neither can get to the magic number without the superdelegates. It's like they are trying to legitimize HRCs argument that there is nothing wrong with overruling the pledged delegates. The only chance she has is to try to catch up in popular vote and close the gap with pledged delegates. That is what she is trying to do and go into the convention with a closer count so that somehow she can get the supers to pick her.

The DLC pretty much did in Howard Dean in 2004 but due to his online fundraising prowess they gave him a bone (DNC Chairmanship)and hoped he'd go away.
He sticking that said bone where the sun don't shine for the DLC.
He and Obamma have changed the way a political primary will be run by Dem.s forever. They won't be going back to the 19 state (olskool thinking) contest. If Obamma wins the DLC is finished and with it goes the Dem. Lobby $$$.
HRC is fighting for more than just the presidency.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the "three data points" are just one data point plus two talking points. What matters, and is the only thing that matters in terms of the primary, is the delegate vote count. The popular vote and the particular states won are only arguments deployed in attempts to influence the choices of the superdelegates and donors. Obama uses popular vote to try to move supers his way just as Clinton uses the particular-state argument to move them her way. Should the ongoing campaign result in changes in either of these two "measurements", I will not be surprised to see corresponding shifts in how each candidate then values that changed indicator. But it is delegate votes that count and with 10 contests left, Obama is clearly ahead in the only index that we can know to date - pledged delegates. Clinton, I think, is trying to keep going by not admitting defeat any earlier than is absolutely necessary, as she should. Who knows what may show up in the news about either of them that could alter the trends ala Spitzer. I say let the games continue. If the trends hold and the supers keep their noses to the political wind, then Obama will win the nomination. As always in politics, it ain't over 'til the fat lady (or man) sings.

If a caucus eliminates the segment of the population that works 4:00 in the afternoon to midnight, home bound people (not all old ladies I might add) and other segments of the overall population, then how can you say this is a democratic vote? It isn't a vote at all. It is something that most states do BEFORE an election and that is to caucus your neighbors and tell them why you want them to vote for your candidate of choice, THEN you go to the voting booth, where you select your candidate. SECRETLY, without coercion. That IS democracy, United States kind of democracy. I read on all of the blogs that people have been threatened, forced to vote a certain way, some elderly women feared for their safety. This does not sound American,, more like some third world nation...

I am sure you all saw this statement/quote by Clinton:

"There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we’re going to follow the process."

The Clintons will be greeted as liberators in Denver.

Jonathon, Any time voters are not counted, the DNC should be ashamed. The rules were that the candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states and none of the candidates did. The rules did not say that you had to take your name off the ballot. The fact that Hillary kept hers on, to me, shows how much more intelligent this woman happens to be and how much more naive Obama happens to be. This is a campaign for the Presidency. She is smarter, more experienced, and I believe more capable, more visionary than anyone gives her credit for. Do you want a President that is so easily manipulated? I sure as hell don't.

Here is how she will help me with the housing mess.. YESTERDAY: I am co-sponsoring legislation with Senator Dodd to expand the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) capacity to guarantee responsible, restructured mortgages. See entire press release here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6515
She hasn't waivered on her promise to start to send troops home in the first 60 days of her Presidency AND I won't have to worry about my kids not being insured and facing bankruptcy if they get very ill. So that is why my vote goes to this woman.

With due respect, a disagreement on your part does not comprise an ill-conceived argument on my part esp. when you are not specific in the charge. Perhaps my analogy should have included, by lucky guess, the class of people who are intermittently unavailable to caucus and thus captured frequent travellers such as yourself. The point is the same. The caucus system does no special harm to your right to vote as, given the seriousness with which you take said right, perhaps you could make arrangements to be there at a place and time known well in advance. Inconvenienced? I concede that. Disenfranchised. No.

I am curious about your references to "pressure" in the caucus system. I was a resident of Washington State for many years and participated in a dozen or so of the causus events there. The only pressure that I recall was the pressure of trying to form and articulate a reasonable argument while sitting across a table from an actual person. I remember it as being sort of exhilarating in general, sometimes tense, often funny, too often disappointing in result but always deeply fulfilling in the end.