All the Obama people can talk about after their savior got his butt kicked is math, math, math, math, math, math, math. Whatever. I respect math. Without math, there'd be no particle physics, sports stats, or sudoku, and it would be hard to figure out if you'd received the correct change. But let's not overdo it. First, math isn't tangible, so we can't know for sure if it even exists. Second, it's confusing, and anything confusing is probably a government conspiracy. Third, it's very inconvenient, and I don't think that we should believe in anything that gets in the way of what we want to believe.

So why do people make such a big deal about it? One word: the Mathematico-Industrio Complex. There are whole industries of geeks that make a lot of money by pretending that math matters. What would all those economists, accountants, engineers, actuaries, statisticians, oddsmakers, and pollsters do if people woke up one morning and realized that math was pointless? I don't know what they'd do. It was a rhetorical question. But whatever they did would probably earn a lot less money. So you see, they have big stakes in perpetuating the MATH MYTH!!!! (The explanation points are for emphasis.)

I'm not saying that math doesn't exist, but we should call it what it is: a theory. Theories are for sissies. No one should ever be denied a rightful primary nomination because of someone's dumb theory. Hillary Clinton knows this. That's why she's still in this race, and that's why she'll still be in this race long after everyone else has gone home or been sunstroked to death by global warming. She's in it to win it, and she's just getting warmed up. OK, maybe she should have gotten warmed up before the primary, but whatever, she's very warm now, and nobody's stupid math is going to get in her way. That's because she's a fighter. She will fight the math, and the math will lose.

Now I know that some people in the fantasy-based community think that it isn't possible, that you can't beat the math. But these people have been duped by the Repukelican attack machines who want us to believe that math matters so that we won't elect the only person in the world who can destroy them. But those evil Repugnics know full well that math is a joke. After all, it didn't stop George Bush from stealing Florida.

So you Obamaniacals can sniff your kool-aid and whine about the math all you want. When it comes to the convention, Hillary's going stick your big bad math up Obama's big bad you-know-what. LOL!!!!!!! (That means laugh out loud. And the exclamation points are to show how hard I am laughing.)

Many of you may have read the story about how Ian Brodie, chief of staff to the Canadian Prime Minister said that a Clinton representative had downplayed Hillary's Nafta comments to the Canadian embassy: "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry." (Link

I'm sorry to say that it gets worse. I've delved deeper into the story and discovered that Canada's primary concern was not Nafta but plagiarism. Canada is the world leader of the anti-plagiarism movement, and Canadians convicted of plagiarism may face 6 months in jail or 48 hours of back-to-back heavy metal tributes to Celine Dion, which Amnesty International has called a human rights violation. In 2003, Canada sponsored the International Edmund Accord on Plagiarism, which George Bush refused to sign, arguing that plagiarism isn't really a problem and is best addressed by free market forces despite the fact that 99% of English teachers agree that the problem has reached epidemic proportions and threatens to destroy the world.

Last month, Canadian spies in Duluth, Minnesota forwarded classified reports to Ottowa about accusations of plagiarism against Barack Obama. But they got the wrong candidate, and the Canadian embassy reached out to the Clinton campaign about the accusations. One Canadian official, who refused to be named for fear of ridicule, said, "You Americans all look the same to us." Clinton representatives assured the Canadians that Hillary takes plagiarism very seriously and would be willing to review the current American policy which prohibits extradition on plagiarism charges. Obviously, this news would not have played well in Ohio, which is widely known as the plagiarism capital of the world. It's economy has suffered recently from a surge in plagiarism out of Mexico.

When Brodie was approached by CTV reporters, he was distracted by the hockey game on the big screen and thought that they were asking about the plagiarism charges. He explained that the embassy had been reassured by the Clinton campaign. But the reporter was asking about Nafta. At a CTV editorial staff meeting, the Canadians again mixed up the candidates, switching back to Obama. One CTV reporter, who refused to be named for fear of ridicule, said, "You Americans all look the same to us." So the reporters prepared a story about Obama contacting the Canadians about Nafta, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Late update: The unnamed official is pressing plagiarism charges against the unnamed reporter.

I know that people have short memories for politics, but let's try to stretch our minds back at least a few weeks. Super Tuesday was only a month ago. At that time Clinton was still considered the frontrunner. A week later, Obama became a "juggernaut" on the Potomac, and Clinton declared a "firewall" in Texas and Ohio. Obama was well down in the polls in both states at that time. In the following weeks, he gained sharply, as he has done in every state during the primary season without exception..

The reason for that those gains are obvious. Clinton is widely known and respected, so people committed to her early. Obama is a newcomer to many. As he campaigns and people get to know him, his popularity surges. If you look at the trendlines leading up to any primary in any state, you'll see that people are not flocking away from Clinton. With a few exceptions, her lines generally arc upward as well, just not as sharply as Obama's.

You can look at the trends yourself here:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Whenever Obama has lost, one of two scenarios has occurred:

1) His curve didn't catch her curve. This is what happened in most of the primaries that he lost. For some examples, look at NJ, MA, and CA. This scenario needs little explanation. Obama started behind and just couldn't catch up.

2) His support dipped at that the last minute. This clearly occurred only in NH and TX (also FL, but he didn't campaign there). This scenario is more difficult to explain. Certainly, events leading up to the primaries played big parts. In NH, it was the tears and the gang-up debate. In TX, it was Canada-NAFTA, a surge in negative Obama press, and more effective negative Clinton ads.

But I look to the similarities between NH and TX. In both cases, Obama was poised for a knockout blow, and in both cases, he lost support to Clinton at the last minute. Put very simply, Clinton had become the underdog, ceding to Obama the role of the smug, arrogant frontrunner that she had held through all of last year. Arguably, Obama has been the frontrunner since the Potomac, but I don't think that it was clear to most people until just before the primary, when Obama pulled ahead in Texas and the media trumpeted the primary there as Clinton's Alamo.

The "underdog" phenomenon is widely recognized. A writeup of one recent study on the subject by U. of  S. Florida researchers can be found here:
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2008/01/what-is-it-we-l.html

Some highlights:

* When students were told which countries had the most Olympic medals and asked which teams they'd back in various pairings, they rooted for the teams with fewer medals.

* When students were shown a map of Israel dwarfing the the Palestinian territories, they expressed support for the Palestinians -- but when they were shown a map of Middle Eastern countries dwarfing Israel, they expressed support for Israel.

* Students watching a taped basketball game not only rooted for whichever team they had been told was the underdog, but attributed more "hustle, effort, heart, and wanting to win" to that team.

* Students told that a team was likely to lose and that it had a lot less money than the other team, they rooted for that team.  But when they were told a team was likely to lose and that it had a lot more money than the other team, they didn't much care who won.

There's also a particularly interesting series on Hollywood's exploitation of underdog themes here:
http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/dispositionist-situational-characters/

This series examines the inspirational story of Rocky Balboa, among other films. Does the following sound familiar?

Now in his 50s, Rocky overcomes age, and the doubts and advice of everyone he knows, respects, and loves to take on (and, in effect, beat) the far younger, faster, stronger heavyweight champion of the world. And how, you might ask, does he manage this impossible feat? The answer is simple: an unwillingness to be moved by situation or, put differently, a tenacious will and unflinching disposition.

The second piece of the series discusses Rocky's battle with outside forces. Replace "government bureaucrats" with the media and demands for Clinton to concede, and the following should also sound familiar:

Consider that Rocky Balboa’s biggest single obstacle isn’t his age, or his willingness to train, or even the sincere doubts of his loved ones. No, it’s those pesky government bureaucrats who, at least initially, deny him his license to fight and thus his “right” to pursue his idiosyncratic version of personal happiness.

Rocky to Boxing Commissioner:

Cause if you’re willing to go through all the battling you got to go through to get where you want to get, who’s got the right to stop you? I mean maybe some of you guys got something you never finished, something you really want to do, something you never said to someone, something . . . and you’re told no, even after you paid your dues? Who’s got the right to tell you that, who? Nobody! It’s your right to listen to your gut, it ain’t nobody’s right to say no after you earned the right to be where you want to be and do what you want to do! . . . You know, the older I get the more things I gotta leave behind, that’s life. The only thing I’m asking you guys to leave on the table . . . is what’s right.

Rocky Balboa, of course, is about an older challenger taking on a younger champion. But it works both ways. Obama used to be the David to Clinton's Goliath.
So what does that mean going forward? The juggernaut storyline hasn't worked out that well for Obama. Both he and Clinton are at their best when they're down. For Clinton to win, she has to continue to push the story of suffering under the heavy hand of the media and misogyny. Conversely, Obama needs regain something of his upstart status by tamping down the stories of media bias, mathematical improbability (do you think Rocky cares about mathematical improbability?), and any more demands for Clinton to concede.

And as Rocky himself articulates the old cliche: "There ain't nothin' over till it's over."

The latest ad from the Clinton campaign includes yet another photo that some liberal bloggers suspect as having been doctored. Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson said, "this is a bogus assertion. Ads look different based on software, screens, computers, television, etc."

I'm no photoshop expert, but I think that this one is pretty clear. Judge for yourself: http://hiddendoorway.com/images/obama.jpg

I have no problem with Mike Gravel. He's run a fine race, and his innovative ad campaign will be studied by strategists for years to come. The one with the rock broke ground never before broken by any candidate and likely never to be broken again, unless he runs in 2012. The mental image of his determined stare still gives me goosebumps. I also appreciate his important contributions to the Democratic debates, though I don't really remember them. But if I remembered them, I'm sure that I would appreciate them. It's not my fault that I wasn't paying attention. Until the fourth debate, I thought that he was just somebody's crazy grandpa who sat in the wrong seat. I blame the media for not clearly explaining that he was not anyone's crazy grandpa.

But look, even if he isn't anyone's crazy grandpa, it's time for him to leave the race. We need to move on and face the common enemy, that other guy who looks like someone's crazy grandpa. Gravel's relentless attacks and weird ads are distracting Obama and Clinton, who don't know how to respond. If they go negative on Gravel and the Republican guy at the same time, it will look like they hate old people, and that would be a tragedy for the party because those geezers sure know how to vote.

I know that the Gravel-bots say that he can still win the nomination. It may be true that some of the 2% of voters who prefer "Other" are Gravel supporters. But I've added up the numbers. Obama has 1,378 delegates, Clinton has 1,269, and Gravel has 0, which is actually less than the margin of error. He would need to get almost all the 1400 remaining delegates to win this thing. While it's numerically possible, that would mean that he would have to win almost 100% of the remaining votes and uncommitted superdelegates in order to win. Just because it happened in Turkmenistan doesn't mean that it can happen here. Moreover, the momentum is not in his favor; Obama and Clinton continue to make headway among voters who prefer "other".

There are those who think that he should stay in the race to try to broker the convention and maybe negotiate VP. But without any delegates, his negotiating position isn't very good. I think that he would have more influence by joining Gore in the role of neutral party elder. He would be able to fulfill this role even better than Gore because Gore just isn't elder-y enough yet, even though he has a beard. Gravel doesn't need facial hair to be a party elder. He has natural graveltas.

I'm surprised that TPM hasn't flagged this Times article on McCain flip-flips, which hits him pretty hard. The first paragraph:

Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the “Straight Talk Express” who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

The article cites five examples:

1. Tax cuts

McCain 2001: “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

McCain now: ...Mr. McCain says at almost every campaign stop that he wants to make those tax cuts permanent rather than have them expire, as the law stipulates, because getting rid of them would have the effect of a tax hike.

2. Immigration

McCain 2005: ...he joined forces with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to co-sponsor an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. Although the legislation included toughening border security, its center was a provision that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

McCain now: Mr. McCain went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it.

3. Abortion

McCain 1999: “I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” Mr. McCain told The Chronicle. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America” to undergo “illegal and dangerous operations.”

McCain now: “I do not support Roe v. Wade — it should be overturned,” Mr. McCain told about 800 people in February 2007 in South Carolina, a crucial primary state with large numbers of conservative voters.

4. Donald Rumsfeld

McCain 2004-2006: But unlike a group of retired generals who called for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation in the spring of 2006, Mr. McCain never did. He said it was the president’s prerogative to keep him. Mr. Bush “can have the team around him that he wants around him,” Mr. McCain told The Associated Press in December 2004.

McCain now: “I’m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go,” Mr. McCain said at the Reagan Library debate on Jan. 30, in typical comments.

5. Torture

McCain until 2007: Mr. McCain was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and has led the battle in recent years to end torture by the United States.

McCain now: Finally, Mr. McCain has been under fire from human rights advocates for his vote last month against a bill that would require the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the restrictions on interrogating prisoners outlined in the Army Field Manual.

The full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03mccain.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics