So, I take it, if Obama wins in Indiana, he will be switching his vote? Good to know.

Heh. I've been wondering how Evan's Veep ambitions were coming along....

I don't know what portion of Indiana's Dem vote is AA, but I wonder if Evan is gonna be as "popular" when this is over as he was when he went into it.

"My advice to you is to follow the voters of your district." ...um, isn't that going off message? According to Team Hillary, I thought pols were supposed to endorse based on their conscience. Snark aside, it's clear that they know that the delegate tsunami is peaking for Obama and now they are in crisis mode. Expect a regular series of SD endorsements for Obama over the next two weeks, followed by wins in NC and Indiana. And that will be the final song of the fat lady.

Eric, fix the link in your post.

If anyone is taken in by Hillary's insanely irrational "popular vote" strategy, consider these six points, and consider them carefully.

(1) Some states did not keep track of popular votes. The 500,000 advantage for Obama does not count several entire states that held caucuses and did not release statistics on the number of voters who participated. This would boost Obama significantly but we won't ever know the numbers.

(2) All of the other caucus states where Obama won handily (often by 2-1 margins) have hugely deflated numbers since, by definition, many fewer voters participate in caucuses. These states were bamboozled if the "popular" vote was supposed to count over delegates. For example, if Washington state, one of many caucus states in this category, knew that some superdelegates were going to decide who would be nominated according to the "popular" vote -- they would never have chosen the sanctioned caucus method. This would have dilluted their power enormously.

(3) In fact, for example, in Washington state, (a state where the caucus voter numbers are not reported) the popular vote went overwhelmingly for Obama in a "beauty contests" (a primary that didn't count) held after the official caucus. This huge advantage for Obama is simply not counted in Hillary's phony popular vote count.

(4) When all the states are taken together, Obama has overwhelmingly beaten Clinton, congressional district by congressional district (where the party rules count the results) in terms of percentage support. Percentage support is a far better metric of voter support than the selectively counted "popular" vote from primaries.

(5) With respect to Michigan and Florida, the arguments have been made over and over again. Agreeing not to campaign, voting with only one name on the ballot, and claiming afterward that those results should count, is simply fraudulent; and

(6) Post-Pennsylvania is Hillary's high point. She is going to be beaten badly in North Carolina (making up at least 150,000 of the vote margin lost in Pennsylvania) and will probably lose more votes in the remaining states. In any event, she can't catch up.

This should be easy for anyone to accept if they would simply apply a little unemotional logic. Hillary's surrogates are simply manipulating irrelevant numbers in order to get impressionable donors to keep sending money. It's a con game because the superdelegates have already decided behind the scenes to let her run out her string, but they know they can't deny the nomination to Obama.

Just as easy to understand is that the popular vote is utterly meaningless. Rules are rules. If I assumed, for example, (which I don't) that Bush won Florida in 2000, he would be entitled to president even though he lost the popular vote to Gore.

It's fine to change rules Senator Bayh, but not in the middle of the game.

At least the Clinton people are consistent.... consistently doing and saying anything they possibly can to prolong this agony.

Bad boy Bayh! You're going off message!

3/27/08
"Sen. Clinton has been vocal in stating that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who'd be the best for the party and the country," said spokesman Phil Singer.

2/17/08
"Superdelegates are a part of the process. They are supposed to exercise independent judgment," said Clinton.

That's the Clinton line. She repeated it today on the Today Show: "Because after all, they have to exercise independent judgment as to who they think is a better candidate to win."

BAYNE GOES BALLISTIC TO HILLARY !

You dog you! How could they spin this any other way?

Sincerely
Larry Johnson, No Quarter

p.s. is Bill jealous yet?

Hillary didn't seem to mind endorsements for her in 2007 -- before *anyone* started voting.

Goddamn the Clinton campaign. Is there no honor among any of them?

"Oh keep it going! We're having such fun, why stop now?"

Disgusting.

Oh, but if only that side of the story were even uttered above a whisper in the MSM, G Davis.

A. Clinton probably does do better in a lot of key swing states. Maybe Obama inspires Democrats in solidly red states like Idaho and in places like Vermont, but it seems blazingly clear Clinton plays better in FL, OH and PA. It's legitimate for super-delegates to consider this.

B. Obama really has never accomplished much of anything on his own. Without affirmative action, it's a near certainty he'd never have made it to HLS, and unlike his classmates, he qualified automatically for the HLR, and his career as a community organizer fails to impress much, and he was a lawp prof for a while but without having to demonstrate any scholarly ability at all, even if he was a "popular" teacher. OK, and a few years in the IL statehouse and a couple of years in the Senate. Man, it's a thin resume, with no demonstrated ability under real-life conditions.

C. Obama has a fruitcake "spiritual mentor" who wears a clown costume and who says crazy ignorant shit. That ought to give you pause to think.

It's not "go away", it's "bugger off".

I am calling on Senator Bayh to part his hair in such a way that it looks less like it is parted in the middle. It's dangerously close to a center part.

Bayh = bully.

Let me get this straight - a guy who endorsed early is telling people not to endorse early? Would you like some fries with your hypocrisy?

Dearest Mila,
I'm very sorry but you merely display your own ignorance and invidious nature with your comments regarding; scholarship; the law; the University of Chicago; affirmative action; a supposed dearth of legal scholars of African-American descent; law review publications. You are factually without foundation on all the stated points.

But... you knew that when you wrote in. Your writing is hateful and without any intellectual merit. You parade your malevolent nature with every additional statement. You are actually proud of your sad deficiencies.

I pity you, you have to live and ultimately die caged in that repulsive consciousness which you have so thoroughly fouled with slovenly thinking and fear soaked ideology.