When you have no clear argument, obfuscate and bullshit. That's their plan.

If they can confuse enough of the public, than they can create the idea that supers are going against the will of the people. Truth is irrelevant to this gambit.

"But no matter how you frame it, Obama is the candidate who has not won a major primary since he swept Wisconsin on Feb. 22 by uncharacteristically carrying high-school-educated and lower-income voters. Yes, given his delegate lead, Democratic rules divvying up the primary vote proportionally, and the fact that there are only seven states left on the political calendar, Obama might survive a near-wipeout in the remaining delegate contests. But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections."
- Walter Shapiro
Here is the link http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/23/pennsylvania/

Bull's eye, Greg. Score 1 for intellectual honesty. Something that was rare before Penn., became even rarer during Penn., and will certainly be on the endangered species list as we move to NC and IN.

As an Obama supporter, I was obviously disappointed with last night's results. I, too, want a knockout blow from him and am getting tired of the "Why can't he close the deal?" questions from the Clinton camp. I was pleased that he said beforehand "a win's a win" and "a loss is a loss" and wasn't going to try to spin a narrow loss into a victory. I can't imagine the Clinton camp being so, well, intellectually honest.

None of which changes the delegate math -- nor even the popular vote math, which you hit on in your post.

I'm hoping/looking for a wave of super D's to come forward this week to help make the case this thing is all but over. I think they give Clinton her 48-hour victory dance but then they move in with the cold hard truth.

Squirrels have been the subject of too much abuse this election season.

However, were I a squirrel, I'd infinitely rather being slow-cooked in a popcorn popper than to be used as an adjective to describe Hillary's bullshit.

Hillary's supporters will have a cow if Hillary's bullshit is called out, and we must not anger them. Squirrels, on the other hand, cannot defend themselves by means of the keyboard when they are compared to the Clinton campaign.

Which of course means that Dr Hillary Strangelove Clinton, who has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, has also gotten more votes than John McCain. Cancel the election. Coronate Queen Hillary, now!!!

By the most optimistic count Obama leads by +2.0%, by the other camp's most optimistic reckoning it's Clinton +0.4%. By no reckoning of the popular vote does Obama garner more than 50%. There is no consensus. There is no mandate. There is no "will of the people" clearly discernible. Yes, Obama leads in delegates, but yet he cannot get enough to reach 2025 which is what is required to claim the nomination. By every possible metric the party is split. The message Obama supporters need to take away from last night is this: Obama has not, and cannot, win the nomination on his own.

Virtually everything Clinton says these days is more spin than substance.

In any case, Clinton has two weeks to push this. The forces of reality have two weeks to correct her. Then, North Carolina and Indiana vote and once again put the popular vote count out of spinnable range.

Botox helps that way.

Funny how she thinks it is fair to count two tainted primaries, but not count four legitimate and fair caucuses. And let's take a trip down memory lane:

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-results.html

Hmmmmmm....Hillpocrisy much?

A slight error. You wrote:

"That said, some number of people did
actually vote in those states, and Obama won three of those four."

In fact, Obama got more delegates out of each of those four states.

I didn't read any of the comments here.

Maybe someone mentioned this.

But in my state, Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot.

Obama wasn't on there.

So, opposed by Kucinich, Gravel, and Uncommitted, in an election she said didn't matter, Clinton won. Uncommitted came in second with 40%.

So, using the logic that most people posses, it is meaningless to use the Michigan vote -- remember the key fact that Obama was not on the ballot -- as any way of saying here, in Michigan, Clinton beat Obama.

Of course, idiots might disagree.

There are two sets of super-delegates her spin can help her with:
(1) Those who don't know who they want to vote for, and need someone else to make the decision for them. A few of these might go with the popular vote, but they'd wait until it was all tallied, in which case it'll probably go to Obama by any metric. Probably, but not necessarily.
(2) Those who already know they want to vote for her and are looking for a means to justify such a vote, because they're took chicken to just say they like her better. These are probably her best target.

Thanks, Greg. As usual, you're the voice of reason. I am really tired of the spin I'm hearing on the Clinton talking points I heard reported as news this morning, as follows:

- Clinton won PA by 10%
- Clinton is ahead in the popular vote
- Clinton has the momentum now
- IN (with 84) is the "next big contest", as though NC's 134-delegate contest didn't count

The superDs can vote however they want. I doubt they are falling for this spin, for the reasons Greg points out. Many of them will vote for the leader in pledged delegates. Many of them may also vote out of self-interest: Obama, not Clinton, has coattails that can sweep Democrats into office in red and purple states. I'm not worried that the superDs will throw this race to Clinton.

Still, I'd like to see Obama win IN outright, and put the undead Clinton campaign out of our misery.

And as I've said before, the total are so close as to be irrelevant in determining the nominee.

And in order to "play by the rules" Obama must admit that there is little to no chance that he or Clinton will get the 2025 necessary. (Even though he repeatedly say whoever has the most should be the nominee, that is not what the rules say).

So, the nominee cannot be chosen by delegate vote, or popular vote (which technically has no merit in the selection anyway).

What then?

Clinton will see this through and be viewed as the best contender vs. McCain. All delegates will be released from their commitments for a final vote and, either she will be selected or the selection will be done by a coin flip.

Obama will not be allowed to buy this nomination. Clinton must be the nominee for the sake of the party and the nation.

Caucuses are a perversion of the democratic process. Just look at the turnout. The DNC needs to put that perversion to death and require a primary from any state that wants their delegations seated. We know that they're capable of doing that. They're thumbing their nose at two important states this year whose delegations won't be seated.

There aren't any caucuses in November. No primary vote? No delegates.

What I don't understand is how anyone in the Clinton camp can believe that this popular vote line will be compelling to unpledged (so called super) delegates.

After all these folks are state party leaders and elected official who are quite familiar with the game.

hm, what do you mean, "who knows?"

it is absolutely, unquestionable not true that more people have voted for Hillary than for Barack. by no measure is that an accurate statement.

I'm amazed leading Democrats are not insisting Obama drop out of the race. He has shown he can't win the big states. By refusing to disavow Wright, he has compartmentalized himself as a black candidate. And, thanks to Rezko, he has been shown to be sleazy. He should accept Hillary's offer of the second position on the ticket and hope that in eight years people will forget Wright and Rezko.

What is this silliness about who's leading in "the popular vote"? [Gad, I've been waiting for months for someone to prick a hole in this this silliness about who's leading in "the popular vote"?] That figure could not be more meaningless. Even those caucus states whose votes could be counted -- which, coincidentally enough largely went for Obama -- express choices that aren't reflected commensurately in the popular vote.

For example, Washington has a larger population than Tennessee and has more delegates -- 97 vs. 85 -- and presumably thus should carry more weight in any mythical "popular vote" contest. And, Obama had three times the margin of victory in Washington (68-31 vs. 54-41) than Clinton had in Tennessee. But, because Washington chose to operate by caucus and Tennessee by primary, Clinton's 82,000 vote margin in such a "contest" carries seven times the weight of his 11,600 vote margin in Washington. This makes absolutely no sense, without even getting into the issue of counting the Florida and Michigan "votes".

The raw numbers:
Tennessee 85 total delegates
Clinton 332,599 = 54%
Obama 250,750 = 41%

Washington 97 total delegates
Obama 21,629 = 68%
Clinton 9,992 = 31%

I'm so sick of the spin from Hillary-Land that it's affecting me just like when I hear Bush on TV...I have to turn it off! It really is as bad as Bush - it's all twisted reality and lies at this point.

I really can't live through another 4-8 years of this crap, I really can't...I can already hear the partisan bickering right now...if she's elected we will soon have the Congress right back in the Republicans hands and nothing will get done in Washington.

She has p-ssed off almost everyone on Capitol Hill with the way she has run this campaign and "The Clinton's" can really hold a grudge against those they think did them wrong...and as a career fed in D.C., it was not easy working under Brother Bill - he was not a friend to the Federal Force that serves the People.

I have to urge everyone to go to the Politico web site and look at the uncommitted Super Delegate List - if they are in your State and they are an elected official, get on the phone, email, or write them - demand them to get off the damn fence NOW!

Greg,

I'm a fan of your posts. However, I've noticed that you consistently misuse "as such" in place of "therefore."

"As such" refers to some status mentioned earlier, as in:

"Obama is a senator. As such, he is expected to represent his constituents."

Not:

"Obama won three of the four caucus states that do not release popular vote totals. As such it is possible that more people voted for Obama even with MI and FL included."

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/assuch.html

Speaking as a Michigander again: Another major problem with Hillary pushing to have her Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot) votes counted, is that she is doing badly in the polls here. She gets under 40% against McCain, where Obama leads McCain by a few percentage points.

If she does get Michigan counted her way, and then pulls off the miracle of getting the nomination, she will certainly lose Michigan in November. Her pretending to be Michigan's hero of democracy is going to solidify her image as a dishonest phony here. And there are probably enough independents unfortunately who will fall for McCain's "straight talk."

He took his name off of the ballot because he was pandering to Iowa and he knew that he was about to get his ass kicked in Michigan. The move has "punkass" written all over it.

A prominent DNC member from Michigan, Debbie Dingell, called the candidates' decision "a coordinated effort in the last minutes available to pressure other candidates to take names off the ballot."

"This election is not for president of Iowa , it is president of these United States," she said. "There will be a primary election in Michigan on January 15th, there will not be a caucus. Those candidates who do not even want Michigan voters to consider them have sent their message to Michigan about how they feel about Michiganders," she said.