Not outraged by the Politico column?

Where do I start?

 1. After the primary season is over, we will count primaries only, and add Florida.  I will give in on not adding Michigan, though as a Michigander, I am outraged by what Dean did to us. There will be several ways to look at the popular vote.  Remember Florida 2000?  The results were examined under at least 9 difference set of assumptions.  Here are the assumptions on the popular vote, and likely winners:

1. Sanctioned primaries and caucuses, with estimates.  Obama likely wins
2. Sanctioned primaries only (no caucuses, which are un-democratic, and will likely never be used again).  Michigan and Florida are not in here. Obama likely winner
3. Sanctioned primaries, caucuses, and Florida.  Clinton likely winner, but this will be very tight.  Hillary is going to win PA by over 300,000 votes
4. Sanctioned primaries, caucuses, Florida, and Michigan, but Obama gets all uncommitted in Michigan: Clinton likely wins
5. Sanctioned primaries, caucuses, Florida and Michigan, with only Hillary’s vote counting in Michigan (Obama knew he would lose so he took his name off the ballot). Clinton wins
6. All primaries, with Florida and Michigan (Obama gets uncommitted).  Caucuses are out.  Clinton likely wins.

1. Let’s start using the electoral college analysis that will performed by the major polling outfits.  If you combine this data with the different popular vote scenarios above, you will find that Clinton has a legitimate case to be made. 
1. Let’s tale the midpoint of the scenarios above, and say the popular vote is about 50-50.  That is close to what it will be, though I am inclined to believe that Clinton will be ahead by a point (under certain scenarios).  What we will have is Clinton winning 50% of the vote but only about 47% of the delegates (though this will likely be 52-48 at the end).  That tells you that the delegate selection system is unfair and undemocratic.  Let’s be consistent democrats: if we believe in popular vote, let’s believe in popular vote.
2. The number of states won is totally and completely bogus.  It is irrelevant in any evaluation, and needs to be omitted from any discussion.  In this scenario, Americans abroad, with 22,000 votes, counts as much as the 2.7 million Texas voters.  And that big Obama win in the Virgin Islands is as important as California?  If we want to start counting states, here is how to count: What is the electoral college vote totals of states won by Clinton and Obama.  Ok, that does not make sense?  Well it makes more sense than equating the Virgin Islands with California.  Of course, this state total is supported by the Obama for President channel, aka MSBNC.
3. Can you say 527 group and Wright?  It will be grainier than a Willie Horton ad.

1. Conclusion: The Politico column, like you JM, and the entire MSNBC Obama for President Channel (sans Pat B), see everything through Obama-colored glasses.  This is the bias in the media.  It is not as simple as anti-Clinton bias, though that certainly exists.  Example: Russert states that if Michigan and Florida count, black people will riot in the streets of Denver (he does not say it like this, but that is his conclusion).  He says this cannot be fair.  But what about the other perspective; lets say Michigan and Florida are given 50-50 as Obama wants.  Why is this not totally unfair to Clinton?  You, JM, and Russert and Matthews and Dowd and Gloria B, as well as all the other Obama-chill up their leg crowd only see the race from Obama’s perspective.

1. The race card:
1. Obama is very talented and gave a nice speech.
2. Obama joined the Wright church to enhance his street cred in the Chicago black political community.
3. The Clinton campaign, with very high probability, had the Wright clips all along, but chose not to use them.  Yet Bill Clinton’s comments are called coded racism, and called the ghettoization of Obama.  If the Clintons wanted to use the race card, they would have pushed the Wright tapes much earlier than the republicans have.

1. As a Hillary fan, here is my objective view:
1. I have watched almost all 20 debates, and she is simply more prepared and more knowledgeable than Obama.  I know others think grasp of issues is not as important as vision and choirs, but that is my bias.  They are both good, but she is simply better than him. 
2. She should have pushed her Senate experience, reaching across the aisle, more than her first lady experience.  Obama has never reached across the aisle.  We heard he did this in the Illinois legislature.  We also heard W. did this in the Texas statehouse.  Hillary is respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
3. The 47% of people who oppose Hillary is based on irrational fears and biases.  Can this be changed?  Absolutely.  What JM and others in the media have never discussed is how Hillary, as the nominee, will get a serious look by the country, and an examination that is not based on Monica or her 1993 health care initiative.  People will see what we have during the primary season, and her negatives will go lower; the 527’s cannot bring up stuff we do not know about her, and people will grow to respect her.
4. The red phone ad was lame, and likely moved less people than is claimed.