We really need to expose these people...This is fraud at the expense of the party!

How neat! They even triangulate their data points as well!

Thanks for sharing as they say to kids.

It's brilliant snark, beyond anything that the fictional West Wing writers ever did. If this the way they answer attacks, I relish the daily briefings in the BO white house.

Now that's an email worthy of a contribution.
Seriously, how do I get a copy I can forward on a site where I can give what I can afford.

Fourth unspoken point: coattails. As Foster's recent Obama-backed win illustrates, Obama can get more Dems elected. So, he wins this argument as well.

actually, with re-dos in florida and michigan, and victories in the remaining states expected to go to hrc.

1. she may indeed overtake him in pledged delegates, although admittedly slim.

2. with florida and michigan re-dos, she's likely to overtake him in popular vote.

3. but regardless of #s 1&2, since neither candidate will reach the required 2024 delegates to win outright, it will come down to super delegates, and the argument regarding the states is actually building on a early obama camp argument about how the super delegates should vote, namely that they should vote to reflect the votes of their state.

well, super delegates, like congressional representatives, are more numerous in big states with more people than in little states with fewer people.

if pledged delegates vote the way their states vote, hrc wins super delegates going away and, "voila!", wins the nomination.

...not such a silly argument afterall, eh?

hrc or bust!

I think she's right.

Why? Based on what? Seriously?

How is she going to win this?

Weren't Florida and Michigan punished for a reason? (I'm a Michigan Voter, disappointed with Levin, et al)

Also, if the DNC can get an election together, Barack and those who who support him will be there..

Re vote or don't she will still be behind in states won, delegates, and popular vote once they are all counted. How does that make her right to anyone who can add?

Sen Obama is not fighting revotes he has said that he will go along with whatever the states and the party decide.

But, isn't obvious to you that she will split there as well? Obama can probably win MI? Then what?

The high ground? Really? Do you think she'd be making the same case if Obama had "won" in Florida or Michigan? Her "principled" stand is nothing more than flagrantly self-interested demagoguery. As a Florida voter who voted for neither Hillary nor Obama, I would be mighty upset if the results of our distorted non-primary were to be accepted as legitimate. Furthermore, I haven't seen Obama trying to block a revote. I have seen him reiterate his position that he signed on to the rules and will continue to honor them. That, to me, looks like the high ground here.

Rightfully claim the moral high ground? Senator Clinton initially wanted the delegations seated proportionate to the bogus votes that included a ballot lacking Senator Obama's name. The high ground? She's talking here with her supporters about a strategy to woo superdelegates under the assumption that she won't catch Sen. Obama's pledged delegate lead. There is no high ground here buddy just Your Highness.

Reminds you of W, doesn't it?

I disagree. I think she will hold her breath and turn blue. Right before the Pennsylvania primary.

Hmm, a reporter, maybe?

Geez, people, get a clue! The reason the right wing constantly accuses the media of bias is because undermining people's trust in the media serves their purpose of winning by lying their asses off. Accusing anyone who reports something you don't like of bias doesn't help the progressive cause. It's like saying a mystery writer is guilty of murder.

She's about as good with money as GWB was with the Iraq war budget:

From Matt Yglesias in The Atlantic

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. [...] The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/spending_spree.php

The reaction of the donors is the most important part of the story that's missing. Greg, can you elaborate more on what the mysterious fundraiser told you?

I think that the lack of any mention of a response might be the most telling. Had their been major support and enthusiasm, it would have been parroted. Loud and proud. Since this report is devoid of emotion, one can only assume the negative might be a real possibility.

She was grilled for the whole time she was there. I bet that when Obama passes the threshold of having enough delegates to over come Michigan and Florida, you will see a sudden agreement to seat them as is, screw a re-vote. If the math we have seen holds steady, that should come soon. This is not going to stop until that line is crossed.

Come on O-Team - keep those supers coming. Drip Drip fills the bucket.

Actually, I do believe Obama is up 5-6 points on both metrics right now and is expected to maintain advantages of roughly that size.

53-47 is pretty definitive.

Also, she doesn't really win the "states won" argument, for a variety of reasons:

-the whole argument is logically incoherent. As should be obvious to anyone with a kindergarten-level education, winning a primary does not guarantee winning or even being strong in a given state in the general. Conversely, losing a primary does not preclude one from being strong in that state in the general. See: Bill Clinton, who lost Maryland, Mass, and NH in the primary before winning all 3 in the general, just for example.

-And the "stronger" argument doesn't even follow, either, since the candidates will be appealing to entirely different population groups in the general than they had to in the primary. As such, it should be no surprise that Obama actually runs stronger than Hillary in GE matchup polls of states she won in the primaries (NH, NV come to mind) whereas, at times, she runs stronger than him in states he won (SUSA had her running better in Missouri, e.g.)

-And he's actually won a whole host of important swing states (that Kerry both won and lost), and is expected to win others. These include: Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington.

So basically, no. She's losing the popular vote decisively. She's losing pledged delegates decisively. What's more, this should be obvious by the fact that just about anyone who takes an actual look at the numbers says his leads are too big for her to overcome. If she can't catch up, than it's not so close it's basically a tie.

And her "important states" argument is both wrong on the merits and logically incoherent.

So yeah. She loses. This may sound like a great "super delegate" argument if you assume the supers are as stupid as, say, Wolf Blitzer, but of course, luckily for us, they're not, which is why Obama has continued to pick up their support post-TX and OH and Hillary...hasn't really seen her super-D #s spike at all</