I really didn't feel like writting this morning so instead I read, and I found this treat.
Enjoy.


It’s over By Dick Morris Posted: 03/06/08 06:02 PM [ET]

The real message of Tuesday’s primaries is not that Hillary won. It’s that she didn’t win by enough.  

The race is over.

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

John McCain’s nomination guarantees that the superdelegates wouldn’t dare. A perfectly acceptable alternative for most Democrats, McCain would harvest so large a proportion of Obama’s votes if Hillary steals the nomination that he would probably win. Even putting Obama on the ticket would not allay the anger of his supporters; it would just make him complicit in the robbery.

Will Hillary win Pennsylvania? Who cares? Even if she were to sweep the remaining primaries and caucuses by 10 points, she would move just 60 votes closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates. And she won’t sweep them all. Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania, the largest prize up for grabs, Obama will probably win North Carolina, which is almost as large. He’s likely to win Mississippi and Wyoming and has a good shot in Oregon and Indiana. The most likely result of these coming contests is that Obama will be roughly where he is now, about 140 elected delegates ahead of Hillary.

Suppose that Hillary will carry those states by enough to offset Obama’s delegate lead. The proportional representation system makes a knockout impossible and so mutes relatively narrow victories as to make them almost inconsequential. Little Vermont, with 600,000 people, gave Obama a net gain of four delegates, half of what Hillary won from the Texas primary, a state with 20 million residents. Even after Hillary won big-state victories in Ohio and Texas, she drew only 20 closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates.

Hillary won’t withdraw. That much is for sure. The tantalizing notion that 800 insiders can offset a season of primaries and caucuses will drive both Clintons to ever-escalating rhetoric. Will their attacks hurt Obama? Likely all they will achieve is to give him needed experience in the cut and thrust of media politics.

Left out of the entire equation is poor John McCain. Unable to get a word in edgewise and unsure of which Democrat to attack, he will have to watch from the sidelines as Hillary and Obama hog the headlines. If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to Hillary in the dead of night without leaving fingerprints at the crime scene, McCain’s nomination will be worth having. If Obama prevails, it won’t be worth the paper on which it is written. The giant killer, Obama will have soared to new heights of popularity and McCain won’t be able to bring him back to Earth in the nine weeks that will remain.

Suggestion for Obama:

The next time Hillary uses the recycled red phone ad, counter with one of your own. When the phone rings in the middle of the night, have a woman’s voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, “Hold on” into the receiver. Then she should shout, “Bill! It’s for you!”

Because with Hillary’s complete lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs, and her lack of the “testing” that she boldly claims, she’ll be yelling for Bill.

Many times the question has been asked.

If Obama would have lost 12 straight contest in a row( including VT) would he still be relevant?

Absolutely not. It would've been over after the Patomac primaries.


So why you ask yourself is there a double standard in this regard.

The Mainstream press has a tough time letting the Clinton's go.
The story which sells the most papers, gets the most ratings, develops the most yahoo.com and google searches.

The Clintons.

It is absolutely amazing to me how this occurs but we forget one thing.
Ratings and sales are what truly matter in the "News world"

As
long as the Mainstream press can find a glimmer of hope for HRC to win
the nomination, they will try to milk that story for all its worth.

Is it fair?

Ofcourse not, but just look how Wolf Blitzer for example will cover an Obama win.

" What will Hillary do now that Obama has won the Chesapeake's primaries"?

Nothing about how Obama is doing. The story line begins with Clinton.

Watch out for it when you watch the news. (Well except for Olberman).

"HRC is down in the polls"
"HRC is crying"
"HRC WINS NH!!! OMG SHE'S BACK"
"HRC WINS NV (oh yeah, but Obama won the delegates)"
"WJC compares Obama to Jesse"
"HRC Loses the Patomac's what will she do now."
"HRC loses wisconsin, "her" core voters are shifting?"
"Oh poor HRC, "SNL- the media is being unfair to her... :( tear)"

"HRC IS BACK!!! WOO HOO!!!"


Give us a break MSNBC, CNN !
your news organizations, cover the news without making it or keeping it alive.

I apologize for this not being my regular writting format, but its emotion I'm trying to let out.

Today is March 5th. The day after Mark Penn's prediction of a Clinton abolishment of Obama's delegate lead. The week after the complaints of un-fair wide spread media conspiracy. The days after the kitchen sink leaving the Clinton Georgetown residence and making an appearance on the campaign trail.
Apparently that kitchen sink is golden. HRC  capture Ohio by 10,  Texas by 4, and  Rhode  Island  by  18.

You ask what has changed? The largest thing is that ever so shifty goal post shifting position like a chicken with out a head.

Amazing it is to see the worthiness of the media to cover a story without making over dramatic, or un substantive.  Is there really no value in measuring the race other than "momentum"? Is there really no value in measuring the the race other than head lines? Absolutely not.

I promise you I will not complain about the media, and this is not meant to chastise the press in any way, but it would be beneficial to not for get that Obama will still have a 150-162 lead in that which matters the most toward the nomination. DELEGATES!!!  

Let us however imagine a scenario in which the primaries are completed. Obama still has the delegate lead, however HRC has the momentum. Imagine a brokered convention in which the superdelagates are honored and they make the ever so wise choice of picking momentum over democracy. We already know Brazile will walk out but I assure you that will only be the beginning. Talk about shooting our selves in the foot.

Let's just remember the nineties as HRC so desperately wants us to do.

William J. Clinton is President. The Democratic party is in shambles. The Democratic governorship is non existent and the congressional caucus is a joke.

I would've never believed this would happen again, but it looks like it definitely will.