Yesterday, Axelrod down played the role of the white working class vote.

“The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many
elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that
Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes," he says.

Axelrod said the problem is older voters.  Maybe he means older white working class voters?  I don't know.

Whatever he meant, it seems that he has his facts wrong.  It is true that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes.  But  it is also true that the last Democratic candidate to win the White House did win the white working class vote.

Again, Ben Smith points to this article:

John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira:

"Keep in mind that Bill Clinton actually carried white working-class
voters in both his successful presidential campaigns (by a single
percentage point in both instances)," they write.

If the super delegates decide to give Hillary the nomination, you can bet that many will be outraged.  Some will use the over turning the will of the people argument.

It seems unlikely that the super delegates will have the courage to vote for Hillary if she is behind in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.

But the popular vote argument being pushed by the Clinton camp is important because there is still the possibility that she may over take him in the popular vote count while loosing in the pledged delegate count.

Leaving the accurate popular vote count argument for another time, the pledged delegate count is not based on a one wo/man, one vote concept.  Smaller states have disproportional delegate representation.  It is based on a concept of "fairness".

Ben Smith ( I know you all hate him) points to an article about DNC rules that illustrates how pledged delegates do not represent one wo/man, one vote.

<blockquote>In a comprehensive, and funny, article detailing how tweaks to party
rules have shaped the  presidential campaigns, Josiah Lee Auspitz highlights a delegate quirk that Obama has been able to exploit:

In the least populous jurisdictions, Wyoming and the District of
Columbia, each delegate stands for about 4,000 and 5,000 Democratic
presidential voters respectively, whereas in Ohio and Florida a
delegate represents about 17,000 Democratic presidential voters.
Obama’s accurate claim that he has won “more states” and “more pledged
delegates” must be tempered with the fact that his tally, assuming he
wins upcoming races in South Dakota and Montana, will include eleven of
the twelve most “over- represented” states on a one-person, one-vote
standard. Rhode Island is the only such state in the Clinton column. Of
the twelve most “under-represented,” Obama has won only four.</blockquote>

It will not be a surprise to anyone that many Hillary supporters feel that the MSM  has been extremely favorable to Obama during the primaries.  Much of the grievance is targeted toward MSNBC, which is commonly seen by many on the left as a counter to the right wing agenda promoted by Fox.

It is counter intuitive for Democrats to praise Fox for its objectivity as Rendell did earlier in the week.  I don't agree entirely agree with Rendell's sentiment about Fox but I do feel that the lines have become less determined. 

Joe Scarborough on MSNBC is a good example.  He is a man with a history and an agenda, and neither Hillary Clinton nor his audience may know it, or much like it.

How do you insert html (link), when posting a blog?  Seems to work in the comments but not in the blogs????

http://www.google.com/ig?hl=en

ggg

<a href="http://www.google.com/ig?hl=en">this</a>

<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/105964/Obama-Clinton-Leverage-Different-Groups-vs-McCain.aspx">The Gallop poll</a> is consistent with conventional thinking.  Clinton and Obama draw from different groups when facing McCain.